The Future of NetBSD

ErisCalmsme writes "In this email Charles Hannum (one of the founders of NetBSD) tells us that 'The NetBSD Project has stagnated to the point of irrelevance. It has gotten to the point that being associated with the project is often more of a liability than an asset. I will attempt to explain how this happened, what the current state of affairs is, and what needs to be done to attempt to fix the situation.' What will happen to NetBSD?"

Comments

This is too important NOT to RTFA

[RLiegh]

So, for your convience, I'm posting it here:

The NetBSD Project has stagnated to the point of irrelevance. It has
gotten to the point that being associated with the project is often
more of a liability than an asset. I will attempt to explain how this
happened, what the current state of affairs is, and what needs to be
done to attempt to fix the situation.

As one of the 4 originators of NetBSD, I am in a fairly unique position.
I am the only one who has continuously participated and/or watched the
project over its entire history. Many changes have taken place, and at
the same time many things have remained the same -- including some of
our early mistakes.

I'd like to say that I'm some great visionary, who foresaw the whole OSS
market, but the fact is that's BS. When we started the project, Linux
and 386BSD were both little hobbyist systems, both pretty buggy, and
both lacking a lot of important hardware support. Mostly we were
scratching an itch: there was no complete package of 386BSD plus the
necessary patches to make it run on more systems and fix bugs, and there
was no sign that Bill Jolitz was going to resurface and do anything.

Much of the project structure evolved because of problems we had early
on. Probably our best choice was to start using central version control
right off; this has enabled a very wide view of the code history and
(eventually) made remote collaboration with a large number of developers
much easier. Some other things we fudged; e.g. Chris got tired of being
the point man for everything, and was trying to graduate college, so we
created an internal "cabal" for managing the project, which became known
as the "core group". Although the web was very new, we set up a web
site fairly early, to disseminate information about the project and our
releases.

Much of this early structure (CVS, web site, cabal, etc.) was copied
verbatim by other open source (this term not being in wide use yet)
projects -- even the form of the project name and the term "core". This
later became a kind of standard template for starting up an open source
project.

Unfortunately, we made some mistakes here. As we've seen over the
years, one of the great successes of Linux was that it had a strong
leader, who set goals and directions, and was able to get people to do
what he wanted -- or find someone else to do it. This latter part is
also a key element; there was no sense that anyone else "owned" a piece
of Linux (although de facto "ownership" has happened in some parts); if
you didn't produce, Linus would use someone else's code. If you wanted
people to use your stuff, you had to keep moving.

NetBSD did not have this. Partly due to lack of people, and partly due
to a more corporate mentality, projects were often "locked". One person
would say they were working on a project, and everyone else would be
told to refer to them. Often these projects stagnated, or never
progressed at all. If they did, the motivators were often very slow.
As a result, many important projects have moved at a glacial pace, or
never materialized at all.

I'm sorry to say that I helped create this problem, and that most of the
projects which modeled themselves after NetBSD (probably due to its high
popularity in 1993 and 1994) have suffered similar problems. FreeBSD
and XFree86, for example, have both forked successor projects (Dragonfly
and X.org) for very similar reasons.

Unfortunately, these problems still exist in the NetBSD project today,
and nothing is being done to fix them.

--

I won't attempt to pin blame on any specific people for this, except to
say that some of it is definitely my fault. It's only in retrospect
that I see so clearly the need for a very strong leader. Had I pursued
it 10 years ago, things might be very different. Such is life. But
let's talk about the situation today.

Today,

Re:This is too important NOT to RTFA

[JerLasVegas]

I think the guy has some good ideas for how to get it back up and in the mix, but who knows how long that will take.

Re:This is too important NOT to RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeh, make it look more like OpenBSD. (Can I mod myself troll?)

Sounds bleak

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Almost as if NetBSD is dying.

I don't buy it though. It's free.

Re:Sounds bleak

[grammar fascist]

I don't buy it though. It's free.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? Nobody does.

(If you think there's the slightest chance this was meant to be funny, it was.)

Re:Sounds bleak

[Shaper_pmp]

NetBSD is dying, craft confirms it.

No, wait...

Re:Sounds bleak

[rsidd]

(If you think there's the slightest chance this was meant to be funny, it was.)

1. Take a perfectly good joke.
2. Emphasise it, highlight it, add a laugh track.
3. Et voila! American humor.

Re:Sounds bleak

[countach]

Why do we actually need yet another free monolithic UNIX-like kernel and utilities? There just doesn't seem to be any reason for existence. It's debatable whether we even need more than one, and it always was debatable. Now that it's fallen into disrepair, let it die. There are better projects to work on.

Re:Sounds bleak

[hey!]

Almost as if NetBSD is dying.

If the NetBSD project dies, it will be an interesting to watch from a mad scientists/vivisectionist viewpoint.

One of the important things about free/open source software is that it's not tied to an organization. This is very important in the survival of software.

I'd like to put for the following conjecture:

A piece of open source sofware will continue to be maintained in perpetuity, surviving the demise of its main sponsoring organizations, provided that the following three conditions hold:
(1) It has a modest but reasonable number of users relative to its complexity
(2) There are no other open source projects that users can switch to with very little effot; the threhold level of effort is reduced as the total number of users increases.
(3) There are no patents that cover fundamental aspects of the software's operation.

For example, provided that nothing fundamental to the Linux kernel violates patents, I'd suggest that the Linux kernel is immortal. (1) It is complex, but has a huge number of users; (2) While BSD would be the most logical move (possibly a BSD distribution using the BSD kernel with GNU tools?), it would require a modest amount of retraining for things like networking and system administration. (3) So far as we know there are no credible assertions of IP violations in the Linux kernel.

NetBSD, I'd suggest, is a candidate for extinction under this conjecture.

(1) It is complex relative to the number of users: see the article's discussion of problems with threading and multiple processors. Of the three "big" BSD distros, it has by far the fewest numbers of users.

(2) It is probable that mostof its users can switch to a different BSD with very little trouble. NetBSD's reputation is that it is the most portable of the BSDs, not the most featureful. Therefore if you can switch, it should be easy. The only group that would drive further maintenance would be people who run NetBSD on very old computers not supported by other operating systems.

(3) Patent problems: none known at this time.

Re:Sounds bleak

[spauldo]

There's a lot of reasons to have it around.

The BSDs do stuff differently, and there's a lot of cross-pollination among them (and to a lesser extent linux). Someone might have an idea they implement in NetBSD that ends up getting ported to FreeBSD and OpenBSD, and vice-versa.

You also have the fact that the focus of the three major BSDs are different - FreeBSD is a general system, OpenBSD is focused on security, and NetBSD is focused on portability between different architectures.

This also gives more people the chance to contribute to the system in general. If you've got an idea for a new scheduler, you can try to get it implemented on one of the systems. If it works, other systems may copy it for themselves. If there's only one system, though, it's a lot harder to get into development because there's fifty other people with scheduler ideas you have to compete with.

Then, of course, the real reason why there's multiple BSDs around - developers want to work on them. Let them have their fun - just 'cause they make it doesn't mean you have to use it.

Re:Sounds bleak

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) It is complex relative to the number of users: see the article's discussion of problems with threading and multiple processors. Of the three "big" BSD distros, it has by far the fewest numbers of users.

Hmm. The next candidate on the list will be my beloved OpenBSD, I am afraid.
Despite of being the world leader in security, both threads and SMP are not its greatest assets.
Don't tell me that it does thread and work on SMPs. But neither on a level demanded by many applications or dual-core CPUs.
I can only hope that Theo will pull out a surprise. Maybe in 4.1 ?

Re:Sounds bleak

[SnowZero]

I think you mean:
NetBSD is dying, mycroft* confirms it.

* RTFA

Re:Sounds bleak

[SnowZero]

FreeBSD is a general system, OpenBSD is focused on security, and NetBSD is focused on portability between different architectures.

NetBSD is clearly the odd-man-out. FreeBSD's 7 arches probably cover 99% of the computers people would want to use. While NetBSD has sacrificed features and speed for portability, FreeBSD has managed most of the portability (from a practical standpoint) while adding new features. OpenBSD has a good niche, as security is a goal for while people are willing to sacrifice some features and speed. Portability alone is a strange goal however, since the only question that really matters is "does it run on all the computers I have".

I'm a Linux user myself, so I don't have much reason for favoritism for a particular flavor of BSD. I try to keep up with OS news in general however. I don't have anything against NetBSD, though I can't say I'd miss it that much (just like slackware as a Linux distro - historically important, but now largely irrelevant). If I had any current concern, it would be that I really hope DragonflyBSD succeeds, as it is pursuing some really interesting ideas in modern OS design.

Re:Sounds bleak

[brunes69]

(possibly a BSD distribution using the BSD kernel with GNU tools?),

Why would BSD the various BSDs switch to using the mostly inferior GNU tools??? The BSD userland is more standard and time-tested.

Sure a few GNU apps have some beels and whistles, like the GNU grep and NU awk, but these are mostly just fluff and could easily be added to the BSD userland if anyone actually cared much about the feature.

Re:Sounds bleak

[hey!]

Why would BSD the various BSDs switch to using the mostly inferior GNU tools???

Answer: for people who are used to them.

Even if we conceded for the moment they are inferior, they aren't that inferior. Try working in Windows for a while and it'll give you some perspective.

Re:Sounds bleak

[jimstapleton]

funny, the GNU tools are the only thing I find advantageous of Linux against BSD in my experience. I have my FreeBSD box running, but installed and use the GNU tools because: (1) more flexibility and options (2) command line arguments tend to be more flexible in their placing... I don't know how many times I've wanted to look at a file, and only after typing the command, considered *how* I wanted to look at it: $ ls somedir -l works great with gnu tools, the BSD tools have a hissyfit. As much as I like (love) the rest of the OS, I stick to GNU for the tools.

Re:Sounds bleak

[Anonymous Coward]

There are several GNU BSD Projects, most prominently being GNU/NetBSD & GNU/FreeBSDk.

Re:Sounds bleak

[BluBrick]

4. Repeat the joke.

Re:Sounds bleak

[DrSkwid]

yeah, why did linux have to come along?

Re:Sounds bleak

[Dan Ost]

Of the three "big" BSD distros, it has by far the fewest numbers of users

Out of curiosity, how do you come to this conclusion?

If I had to guess, I would have guessed that OpenBSD has the fewest users.

Re:Sounds bleak

[hey!]

Well, Wikipedia's comparison of the three distros, which as we know is not authoritative on anything. It shows OpenBDS without about 15% to NetBSD's 3% (rough numbers from memory).

Re:Sounds bleak

[countach]

If you want to hack, why not hack a UNIX that is in good repair? If you just want to have fun and learn, why not write your own mini unix? And if you've got a good scheduler, why not write it for FreeBSD, who cares if they want it or not? If it's that good they'll take it up anyway. If it wasn't that great why would anybody want it? You want to get it into NetBSD just for Kudos? Fork your own FreeBSD if you believe in that scheduler so much.

Re:Sounds bleak

[xtracto]

Wow, seems that BSD is OLD SCHOOL,

Just take a look at the ID's of people posting. I thought that IDs 300000 where dead:

rsidd (6328)
BluBrick (1924)
hey! (33014)
chaoskitty (11449)
DavidpFitz (136265)
Snap E Tom (128447)
zensonic (82242)
StarKruzr (74642)
QuantumFTL (197300)
evilviper (135110)
(etc).

I think this is the thread where I have seen the biggest quantity of low id posts =o).

Seems Old guys come out of their chairs to defend their lawn =oP

Re:Sounds bleak

[be-fan]

NetBSD also has a ridiculously clean codebase. That means if you're porting the OS to a new architecture, or doing some sort of OS research, the NetBSD code is a much better place to start than the FreeBSD or Linux code.

Re:Sounds bleak

[jabuzz]

Well there is the GNU tool chain (aka gcc and friends) that are rather sort of important even for the BSD's for starters. This is what I took the post to be refering to myself.

Re:Sounds bleak

[CoolVibe]

Nope, we're pretty much alive. Just like *BSD :)

Re:Sounds bleak

[bradkittenbrink]

I thought it wasn't referring to anything in particular, but I think it should have been referring to Debian kFreeBSD. That's the clear migration path for linux users if linux goes belly up.

Re:Sounds bleak

[jimstapleton]

as much as I like BSD, I suspect BSD will go belly up long before Linux - BSD just doesn't get the marketing Linux does, and won't achieve the popularity.

Re:Sounds bleak

[anlprb]

"Why would BSD the various BSDs switch to using the mostly inferior GNU tools??? The BSD userland is more standard and time-tested."

Unless you define more standard by number of installations, then the GNU toolchain is definately more standard.

Standard according to M-W.com
2 a : regularly and widely used, available, or supplied

"but these are mostly just fluff and could easily be added to the BSD userland if anyone actually cared much about the feature."

Apparently the GNU community actually cares and/or uses it. And by numbers, I think the Linux community is definately classifiable as "anyone."

Re:Sounds bleak

[Doctor Memory]

If you'd read the article, you'd have seen that Linux actually existed first. NetBSD arose because Linux was still too much of a toy at that point. TFA makes a good point for why Linux ultimately became more "successful" (as far as being a dynamic, viable system, I don't know how they compare installed-base-wise).

It's a shame, I really like NetBSD (even if a lot of their "supported architectures" just boot the kernal and may not really run anything useful), and I hate to see them in this state. Oh well, that's the beauty of OSS: if things really get bad, somebody will just fork the latest codebase and take it in a better direction (c.f. OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD....)

Re:Sounds bleak

[jb.hl.com]

By that measure, Windows is the standard OS...

Re:Sounds bleak

[MrNemesis]

Surely you forgot:

5. Profit!!!!
6. GOTO 4 ;)

Re:Sounds bleak

[arodland]

Under 300,000? Come on, what's that? Even I know that I don't have a low uid, and I post all the time :P

Re:Sounds bleak

[nine-times]

If the NetBSD project dies, it will be an interesting to watch from a mad scientists/vivisectionist viewpoint.

One of the important things about free/open source software is that it's not tied to an organization. This is very important in the survival of software.

Can open source software really die? Worst case scenario, doesn't it just cease development, and cease to be used? In that case, it's nothing to be sad about, because anyone who wants it can still use it, so if it ceases to be used, that must mean that its users have found something which suites their purposes better?

I know, this was largely my point. I'm just not sure it makes sense to use the language of "death" connected to an open source project. Maybe it just goes into hibernation until someone else finds a use. I doubt that the source code will disappear, even if there ceases to be a single user or developer. Someone will keep a copy around.

Re:Sounds bleak

[jpostel]

Came out of my chair?

I came out of my grave!

Re:Sounds bleak

[Anonymous Coward]

And you Linux supports more platforms and architectures..

At least according to this cat.

Personally, I think the best thing the Linux and BSD world has going for it is that Sun still thinks that it's all about the kernel. Nobody is ever going to switch to Solaris for dtrace, zones and zfs. 64bit filesystem vs. 128bit? Wake us up when it actually matters, if it ever does. I'm not saying kernels don't matter but the differences between various ones the features and lacking feature set is becoming small enough to not really care. The benchmark differences are so small and the stability differences aren't measurable.

The worst thing is that Apple seems to have their head out of their ass on this and working at getting in to "server space." They aren't afraid to challenge anything either. I kind of like how launchd works, it's not init and that's the point. It's not SysV init scripts either. That's just a small part of the treatment though. By the time they get real with it, who knows what they'll have done?

BSD and Linux both have pretty high viscosity when you get down to it. Linux is the wild west, lot's of things change but it all stays pretty much the same. BSD are up in their ivory tower so disconnected from the rest of the world... (They still think FreeBSD is "more stable" which might have been true at times during the 4.2 and 5 releases but I think it's hard to make that claim against any of the 6 stuff.)

An "easy to port" kernel is nice, as often as you do that. Personally, I've done it exactly one time and it's wasn't nearly as hard to do with Linux as you might expect. It's not a selling point, you know? It appeals to a very very tiny sliver of the user base, heck, it's a tiny sliver of the development community.

As serving platforms the area where the BSDs and Linux will fall behind is userspace. There isn't a programming framework, most apps on these platforms start with C code and syscalls still. The tools are all fairly raw. I assume that Sun and Apple will be playing ball for real, they are banking a lot in this new "UNIX" world... The GNU tools and such made UNIX feel a lot better but we havne't done much since then.

Re:Sounds bleak

[drwho]

Kids these days...they think that four digit slashdot UIDs are old-school...back when I was young, we thought that three digit UIDs were newbies, and we used to count in roman numerals...

Seriously though..six digit UIDs are not old school

Re:Sounds bleak

[DrSkwid]

I don't need to read the articles to know BSD was around before Linux.

One of the reasons Linux caught on was the pending AT&T court case against BSDi, Linux was free of such perceived encumberances, though subsequently unfounded.

My ISP still runs a BSDi server, I've got the install disk here on my desk.

Re:Sounds bleak

[RLiegh]

Can BSD do the same? ;)

Re:Sounds bleak

[SillyNickName4me]

FreeBSD's 7 arches probably cover 99% of the computers people would want to use.

Incidentely, of the 7 computers I have at home here, there are 5 where FreeBSD 7 does not run, and 4 on which no version of FreeBSD can boot even in theory.. Those are 2 HP/9000 systems, a Sun Sparcserver 20, an Amiga 3000, and a slightly older x86 machine. 2 of those are in use everyday (the sparcserver is internal dns and the older x86 machine is a slightly 'advanced' x terminal.

While NetBSD has sacrificed features and speed for portability, FreeBSD has managed most of the portability (from a practical standpoint)

No they have not. FreeBSD 7 does indeed run on many fairly modern machines, but does not run well on anything a few years old regardless of what cpu and architecture it uses.

What NetBSD's 'portability' results in, and which you seem to not realize at all, is in much cleaner solutions that will not break on some obscure, seemingly unrelated changes. You may not realize how important that is untill you tried to write an OS yourself maybe..

while adding new features.

Lets see... FreeBSD's usb support comes from NetBSD, so does its bluetooth support. Ah, but FreeBSD did add wireless and acpi support more decently during that same time..

Seems like a pretty even score to me actually, even while I am sure I forgot some things on both sides.

OpenBSD has a good niche, as security is a goal for while people are willing to sacrifice some features and speed. Portability alone is a strange goal however, since the only question that really matters is "does it run on all the computers I have".

"I want to use the same base system on all hardware that I have" is not strange at all. You obviously never have been in a large environment where different kinds of hardware are used because they are good at different kinds of things, but people would still want to run the same basic OS on them. Not everything is a PC, and that is good because PCs really suck at some things.

I'm a Linux user myself, so I don't have much reason for favoritism for a particular flavor of BSD. I try to keep up with OS news in general however. .....

I don't have anything against NetBSD, though I can't say I'd miss it that much (just like slackware as a Linux distro - historically important, but now largely irrelevant).

And that is why I will now say that you really have very little understanding of what NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and the like are doing, about their similarities and differences, and what the relevance of NetBSD is as a system. It is sadly mostly irrelevant from a user point of view, it is definitely not from an OS developer point of view, and as such it has quite some relevance for even those who develop Linux right now.

If I had any current concern, it would be that I really hope DragonflyBSD succeeds, as it is pursuing some really interesting ideas in modern OS design.

If you'd have read the article and understood it somewhat, you'd realize that if anything, Dragonfly suffers from some of the exact same issues that resulted in the current state of NetBSD, and from my point of view, their relevance is similar, relevant to OS developers, not to end-users. That however does not mean that there is no reason for it to exist, and I fail to see any argument in your post suggesting why that is different for NetBSD.

Re:Sounds bleak

[SillyNickName4me]

Personally, I think the best thing the Linux and BSD world has going for it is that Sun still thinks that it's all about the kernel. Nobody is ever going to switch to Solaris for dtrace, zones and zfs. 64bit filesystem vs. 128bit? Wake us up when it actually matters, if it ever does. I'm not saying kernels don't matter but the differences between various ones the features and lacking feature set is becoming small enough to not really care. The benchmark differences are so small and the stability differences aren't measurable.

Ah, someone else who believes the kernel doesn't matter..

I could run everything that is part of the typical Linux distribution on FreeBSD, and yet, I still would not have decent 5.1 audio and proper usb support for anything beyond a simple mass storage device or mouse.

I could run the FreeBSD userland on top of a Linux kernel however and still get working 5.1 audio and proper usb support

As a matter of fact, the differences between the userland on both are so small as to not matter for most practical purposes, and where there are differences in the userland, it is virtually always possible to port them. This is simply not true for the kernel.

I do agree with your opinion on Apple's changes however, getting rid of init is a very good idea, but then, unlike Linux and the *BSDs, Apple never tried to make a Unix like system, rather, they took the BSD derived system they already had and thought that it would be usefull as a component for building their next OS. This made it easy to get rid of traditional Unixisms like init

As a small sidenote, Apple uses a rather not unix like kernel..

What you are right about is that kernel features in themselves don't matter, what matters is the end-user functionality enabled by those kernel features.

Re:Sounds bleak

[SillyNickName4me]

Just someday try to get you a bsd tar and ftp, and compare them to gnu tar and the typical linux ftp client.. Anything the later 2 do are done by the first 2 as well but better, and they do a few things more.

This isn't true for all cases, but its not that exceptional either.

Re:Sounds bleak

[rthille]

That's funny, I don't consider a 5-digit ID low :-)

But then I don't think of myself as that 'early'. My friend turned me onto slashdot, and I think he was a 3-digit, or at least he started reading then. Not sure if he registered or not. He's a bit of a paranoid-geek...

Re:Sounds bleak

[Panaflex]

I'd say also that when I started on Linux (hrm.. 1992) that Linux has an easier install.. And it was a smaller install (can you say 1200 baude model, I knew you could!). Plus I seem to remember that you needed a commercial compiler to bootstrap BSD386 initially.

I think I was probably the first person to run Linux at Verizon(then GTE) too.. (I was in intern there in the summer of 1993) I booted it on their left-for-dead NCR machines. It looked sooo bad next to the HP workstations they had.. but I had a kickin internet connection LOL.

Re:Sounds bleak

[Optic]

Loving NetBSD! It's still solid for me. I wish they released binary patches for security updates though. That way I could have a NetBSD box without requiring the full CVS source code on it. :P

Re:Sounds bleak

[rthille]

Answer: for people who are used to them.

But that's the reason I like BSD's tools (coming up on Sequent unix, then NeXT).

I'm considering moving off NetBSD (since I've got a new x86 server to replace my old mips-based cobalt box) to Linux, but I _really_ don't want to deal with re-learing all the userland stuff. And I really like pkgsrc and building (or at least having the option) myself.

So, how hard would it be to use the BSD userland & pkgsrc on a linux kernel? Probably not worth the trouble, as being 'off in the weeds' you end up having to track down issues no one else has run into and fix them yourself...

Re:Sounds bleak

[quantum bit]

Yeah, no kidding. I've always considered myself a late-comer to slashdot (though I did read headlines for a long while before registering, probably could have snagged one in the 100,000 range if I wasn't lazy).

Under 300,000 is definitely not low ID. Under 100,000 maybe.

Re:Sounds bleak

[Cheerio Boy]

Napster!? I was getting mp3s off of Usenet back in the day!

(This joke would have been a lot funnier had my user ID been lower than yours. ;-)

Re:Sounds bleak

[pthisis]

Sure a few GNU apps have some beels and whistles, like the GNU grep and NU awk, but these are mostly just fluff and could easily be added to the BSD userland if anyone actually cared much about the feature.

Nobody's bothered to add them to the BSD userland because there's no advantage in doing so; it's easier just to build and install the GNU utilities.

I've never seen a BSD development box (as opposed to a production box that developers aren't using on a daily basis) that didn't have at least grep and a few other GNU replacements installed.

Re:Sounds bleak

[unity]

Probably because a lot of us ran the *BSDs way back when.
I remember installing FreeBSD over ftp on a 14.4 modem back in '95.

This thread is seriously making me reminisce when /. had more quality posts and you were more likely to run into actually informative/insightful posts than everybody trying to make a one line joke. (mod Funny)

But I guess it can't be too bad, since I'm still here.

Re:Sounds bleak

[pthisis]

I didn't consider myself particularly early to the game. I'd say that it's the 4 digit folks who are oldtimers.

Re:Sounds bleak

[Spaceman40]

3.5 - Profit

Re:Sounds bleak

[Anonymous Coward]

4. Repeat the joke. .

Re:Sounds bleak

[eneville]

This thread is seriously making me reminisce when /. had more quality posts and you were more likely to run into actually informative/insightful posts than everybody trying to make a one line joke. (mod Funny)

I think it's because /. came out when spam became profitable on newsgroups/maillists aroud the same time, /. was spamfree. Those looking for good information probably came here, if they happened to know about it.

BTW, I too was a modem user, did you ever hang on rusty n eddies?

Re:Sounds bleak

[rho]

STFU noob.

Re:Sounds bleak

[unity]

"BTW, I too was a modem user, did you ever hang on rusty n eddies?"

Can't say that I did. And excellent point about the spam on usenet/maillists.

Re:Sounds bleak

[Bob Uhl]

Why would BSD the various BSDs switch to using the mostly inferior GNU tools??? The BSD userland is more standard and time-tested.

Easy: first of all, the GNU tools are not inferior; they are, if anything, far superor. The BSD tools are old-fashioned and painful to use--like having to carry boulders up seven flights of stairs rather than using a simple pulley arrangement.

I will grant that the GNU tools could use a bit more stability--but every month they improve; the BSD tools simply stagnate.

Re:Sounds bleak

[metroplex]

It's like a safari, isn't it!

Re:Sounds bleak

[Nimrangul]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSD Or you could just look at the OpenBSD article on Wikipedia which clearly states it out, 32.8 percent of the people surveyed by the BSD Certification Group said they use OpenBSD, 77 percent of the people said they use FreeBSD, 16.3 percent of the people said they use NetBSD and 2.6 percent said they use DragonFly BSD - none of these were exclusive uses, so a person who uses both NetBSD and FreeBSD is counted in both percentiles.

Re:Sounds bleak

[andreyw]

...you know of ANOTHER functional, cross-platform and free C compiler?

Oh wait. No, you don't. Yup, looks like there is NO REAL ALTERNATIVE to GNU tools, at least from the perspective of development.

And as others have mentioned, having to deal with BSD tools, coming from a GNU world, is downright painful - missing functionality, obscure features, etc, gah.

Re:Sounds bleak

[Anonymous Coward]

Kernel stuff isn't that difficult to port... It takes some effort though.

I'm not going to agree that kernels don't matter but I do agree that the differences are smaller and smaller, device support seems to be the biggest and most outstanding issue of difference between various UNIX and UNIX like kernels (FreeBSD, Linux, OpenBSD, NetBSD, XNU, and Solaris) I think that's kind of the point. More interestingly, Sun isn't going gangbusters on device support, they've increased their effort on the core. Apple does their own thing and device support doesn't even appear to be a concern to them, they are doing the hardware stack, they at least have an excuse and compelling hardware. The BSDs kind of do it in spurts but don't seem utterly concerned with it. Linux just has huge popularity going for it so it naturally acquires device support. Other than devices it seems like there is quite a bit of parity.

If device support is the big differentiator, then what at all does FreeBSD have going for it either? It's not difficult to come up with hardware it won't play with. The core team isn't that different that NetBSD's other than they execute more efficiently, they aren't making a big device support push... It seems like it's a critical situtation that device support isn't the number 1 effort for Free right now.

I'm not trying to flame here or start a war but NetBSD is in a bad spot because of the way the dev team works, or doesn't work. There are certain politics, there is lacking leadership, etc.. That's the BSD way, that's how dragonfly got going. That's how openbsd got going. In this particular case, I really don't see a lot of room for NetBSD, not that there is anything wrong with it but I just don't see it solving too many problems that matter to a lot of people that aren't already solved by FreeBSD typically. So what's the future for FreeBSD, it doesn't operate that much differently, it's really just bigger. While I don't personally care for Theo and I have had differences with him, and I never thought I'd say this, if you take this NetBSD issue seriously (and the BSD world should) OpenBSD looks like the only healthy one of the lot.

Re:Sounds bleak

[grammar fascist]

Actually, I was afraid the moderators would mod my post down as a troll.

The problem is that I can't trust Slashdotters in general to have a sense of humor.

Re:Sounds bleak

[laffer1]

As I'm in the process of starting a BSD myself, I can say OpenBSD has some interesting components. Its easy to integrate their ideas into other projects. FreeBSD is working on performance and fixing some of their early 5.x design decisions. I think things will get better, but not without breaking some apps again. They plan to change the default threading library AGAIN with 7.x.

DragonFly is very interesting. I almost wish I had jumped on that bandwagon.

As for the comments above that FreeBSD is general purpose, I have to disagree. FreeBSD is a server OS. They are actively working on getting niagra style sun boxes working. Anyone who's taken an operating systems course in college knows that scheduling for a 2 cpu system is quite different than a 32 way. I just don't think we'll ever see 2-4 way cpu performance with FreeBSD. The scheduler needs repair or replacement. In fact, there should be different code for a ton of cpus vs a few.

From my perspective, NetBSD and FreeBSD have some serious problems to overcome. I don't see a lot of names on the FreeBSD mailing lists like I used to. There are many new commiters taking over sections of the kernel. Its almost like a mass exodus from the project is happening. Maybe the developers are just tired. I think DragonFly and OpenBSD are the innovators right now. I urge people to contribute to OpenBSD. They need the money and they are doing the real work on wireless, and many other technologies.

I've been struggling with the idea of a "core" in my project. I think this article might have talked me out of it. /* begin shameless plug */
If there are developers with NetBSD and FreeBSD who are unhappy, take a look at the other 3 BSD projects. All of us can use the help. I'm looking for people to work on all parts of the system right now. http://www.midnightbsd.org/

Re:Sounds bleak

[spauldo]

Why not ask the people who code for NetBSD? They'll tell you why they do it.

The scheduler was just an example, but using that example, what if NetBSD is a particularly good testbed for it? Maybe you like the way the kernel internals are sorted out, so you want to work on it there. Maybe there's thirty people doing scheduler work on FreeBSD and you can't get your ideas in. Maybe you don't have the knowledge of other kernel areas to write your own mini-unix, or maybe you want to work in a collaborative environment where you get feedback. Everyone has their reasons.

Either way, if you don't run NetBSD, it shouldn't matter to you. There's been enough code lifted from it to prove its worth many times over, and if the developers want to keep going, then they'll keep going. Like I said, let them have their fun, they aren't hurting anything.

Re:Sounds bleak

[xpurple]

Who are you calling a noob? ;)

Re:Sounds bleak

[xpurple]

I think this is the thread where I have seen the biggest quantity of low id posts =o). Seems Old guys come out of their chairs to defend their lawn =oP

I prefer to consider myself well seasoned :)

As for NetBSD? I currently use it for servers. It's easy to configure and very stable.

Re:Sounds bleak

[benedict]

Yes, I like to sneer at you five-digit Johnny-come-latelies. ;-)

Re:Sounds bleak

[SillyNickName4me]

Kernel stuff isn't that difficult to port... It takes some effort though.

There are technical and legal issues making this difficult.

Porting *BSD kernel stuff to Linux is usually not a problem for legal reasons, but the other way around might well be if it is to be integrated into a *BSD kernel.

Technically, it depends a lot on what you want to port, but the underlying differences between a Linux and a BSD kernel can be substantial, and you may well be running into features that one has and the other does not have at all.

I'm not going to agree that kernels don't matter but I do agree that the differences are smaller and smaller, device support seems to be the biggest and most outstanding issue of difference between various UNIX and UNIX like kernels (FreeBSD, Linux, OpenBSD, NetBSD, XNU, and Solaris)

Differences between the virtual memory management of those kernels makes them work better or worse, or at times not at all depending on your situation. For example, where Solaris and Linux can handle resizing physical memory, BSD kernels can not. This makes hardware where you can add memory on-the-fly a no-go on a BSD system, but you do gain a bit of performance due to this.

Differences in schedulers look very acedemic when being discussed, but the difference for the end-user is quite real, and becomes larger the more common it becomes to have hundreds of small programs running.

The differences in threading implementations matter little to the end-user directly, but matter a lot to how well certain applications run, and since that happens to include things like video playback, it does matter to the end-user at times.

So while device support is the most glaringy obvious difference, it is not the only relevant one, and definitely not the most difficult one to change.

I think that's kind of the point. More interestingly, Sun isn't going gangbusters on device support, they've increased their effort on the core. Apple does their own thing and device support doesn't even appear to be a concern to them, they are doing the hardware stack, they at least have an excuse and compelling hardware. The BSDs kind of do it in spurts but don't seem utterly concerned with it. Linux just has huge popularity going for it so it naturally acquires device support. Other than devices it seems like there is quite a bit of parity.

FreeBSD as well as Linux supports first of all the hardware that is relevant to those close to its development. For many configurations the differences in device support are hardly relevant, for some they are. If you want to have a use for your usb headset without having to patch the usb audio driver (and have the luck to have the 'right' type of usb controller), then Linux is your friend. If you need sata raid support without fuzz, FreeBSD is your friend, just to give some examples (neither of them being unique)

If device support is the big differentiator, then what at all does FreeBSD have going for it either? It's not difficult to come up with hardware it won't play with. The core team isn't that different that NetBSD's other than they execute more efficiently, they aren't making a big device support push... It seems like it's a critical situtation that device support isn't the number 1 effort for Free right now.

What is critical for FreeBSD in the area of 'device support' is getting usb support to work properly. That means getting rid of giant where possible, getting full duplex audio working, getting ugen to actually work for anything other then the most simple cases etc.

For the rest, cases where Linux supports some random device I end up with while FreeBSD doesn't are about as common as the other way around, and usually after a few months both support the thing.

As long as getting a simple usb webcam or digital camera or printer/scanner or usb headset working is a lot of work if it works at all FreeBSD will have a problem on the 'desktop', and more importantly, among the enthousiasts which

Re:Sounds bleak

[Fweeky]

"They plan to change the default threading library AGAIN with 7.x."

The change in threading libraries in 5 involved a lot of brand new kernel and userspace code and a completely different mechanism for threading; moving from userspace "green" threads to kernel supported threading (KSE's). The change planned for 7 involves swapping the two stable, interchangable userspace pthread libraries that use KSE's around because, after years of testing, fiddling and production use, the alternative one has turned out to be generally faster and simpler. Hardly the same ballpark as the big libc_r -> libpthread change, unless I've missed some scary discussion recently ;)

Re:Sounds bleak

[Bretai]

Get off my lawn, punk! ;-)

The 5-digit era appears to have ended in 1999, if nitric is an indicator: http://slashdot.org/~nitric

The 4-digit uids probably ended only months earlier. So, I give credit to everyone under 100000.

Re:Sounds bleak

[thornist]

Well there is an argument for saying that Windows is the standard *desktop* OS.

That doesn't mean it's the standard server OS, or embedded OS.

You could generalise further to say that by volume Windows is the standard OS, but that just isn't necessarily very meaningful to someone making a decision in regard to a large data centre deployment, for example.

Re:Sounds bleak

[Anonymous Coward]

I think NetBSD's major focus on portability has reached the water's edge. It's great that NetBSD can run just about anywhere, but legacy architectures, a major component of the user base, can't compete with the latest hardware in terms power and cost anymore, particularly when innovative new features increasingly tax old hardware. Embedded systems, at least the ones that use real operating systems, are increasingly becoming i86 based, yes? And it sounds like there's a point where portability no longer means clean source code and starts making the code hopelessly complex, no doubt slowing down the addition of new features etc. The other BSD's (and probably Linux) owe NetBSD a great deal for the work they've done. In many cases, NetBSD has improved upon ideas from other projects. But I've never thought of NetBSD as being anything comparable to "shrinkwrapped" software product in terms of useability, but a foundation for more popular projects to build off of. As far as the direction NetBSD is taking, Mr. Hannum can do what OpenBSD did, or he can do what DragonFly did and go in a different direction from all of the other Unix-like projects out there.

Re:Sounds bleak

[Hanzie]

Back in the day, we had REAL operating systems.... Cough, cough, SLAP, Ghaaaak.

Martha, where's my LART!?! There's these damn KIDS around again...

Re:Sounds bleak

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the New World Order.

Re:Sounds bleak

[Guido del Confuso]

can you say 1200 baude model, I knew you could!

Can you type "1200 baud modem"? No? God damn remedial kids. I swear, I must be up to three packs a day...

Re:Sounds bleak

[rsidd]

The point is, what joke were you making that your parent hadn't already made?

The problem is that I can't trust Slashdotters in general to have a sense of humor.

Nor could your parent, apparently...

Re:Sounds bleak

[Anonymous Coward]

Porting "kernel stuff" isn't that hard? Wha??? Porting the kernel to
a new architecture is *the* work. The compiler needs a bit of work, but
is largely giving it a machine description; the assembler is pretty
well a straight translation of the ISA spec. Bit goes into low level
libraries like libc.

All the machine specific code goes into the kernel. MMU management,
CPU context switching, hardware discovery, bootup, interrupt management,
PCI controller programming... The former several items can be so varied
and specific that a given OS architecture may simply not be able to
function on a given architecture without being redesigned. For example
Linux supports CPUs that lack a memory management unit, while NetBSD
cannot.

Userspace is almost broken by definition if it works on one platform
but not another, even with a low level HLL like C. And assembly is
rarely used these days.

Re:Sounds bleak

[Anonymous Coward]

i do everything, and that includes coding, on an openbsd box where the only major gnu stuff for my own use are screen and gcc/gdb. i have also automake/autoconf/gmake installed too, but that's only because i have to use them to compile some programs that other people wrote. i have no use for them myself, and consider them overcomplicated and fragile. just my 2c...

Re:Sounds bleak

[Shanep]

Wow, seems that BSD is OLD SCHOOL,

Just take a look at the ID's of people posting. I thought that IDs 300000 where dead:

(etc).

I think this is the thread where I have seen the biggest quantity of low id posts =o).

Seems Old guys come out of their chairs to defend their lawn =oP

I think the "old guys" prefer mailing lists and the like, for the reduced noise. I use /. for a heads up and sometimes read and reply to comments, but mostly I try to avoid the waste of time which /. seems to have become. I think there are lots of these "old guys" reading but not bothering to argue politics with the mentally insane. The uninformed who think they have an axe to grind sometimes come into a BSD mailing list and then get frightened off.

Re:Sounds bleak

[Shanep]

Napster!? I was getting mp3s off of Usenet back in the day!

Pft, when I started downloading from the intarweb from home in 1991, I would have to dial in to my favourite UNIX BBS and submit a download request as a batch process which would be completed the next time that BBS connected to the net. A few days later I might have my little text file, if I was lucky. Getting swimsuit babes .gif files in 256 glorious colours and FidoNET email downloaded in .QWK packages was great. Those were the days. I'd dial-in, download my subscribed mail, hang up, read it, reply to it, then dial-up again to upload my replies.

I still remember seeing the Linux 0.9 stuff on the BBS' after that and wondering what it was.

Oh the joys of being afraid of girls.

Re:Sounds bleak

[Shanep]

Well, Wikipedia's comparison of the three distros, which as we know is not authoritative on anything. It shows OpenBDS without about 15% to NetBSD's 3% (rough numbers from memory).

For whatever this might be worth, Google Trends might show the level of interest between the 3 major BSD's.

Re:Sounds bleak

[Eivind Eklund]

Porting *BSD kernel stuff to Linux is usually not a problem for legal reasons, but the other way around might well be if it is to be integrated into a *BSD kernel.

This is the general perception, yet I believe it is wrong. The BSD license place specific reproduction limits on the license itself, this is in conflict with the GPL "no further restrictions" clause.

The argument that the people that believe this is legal use is that the GPL already requires reproduction of copyright. However, the reproduction of many different copyright clauses/licenses is in itself a further restriction in practice. This is why both NetBSD and FreeBSD have done active work to limit the number of licenses.

Eivind.

Re:Sounds bleak

[Eivind Eklund]

Why did you choose to start a new BSD instead of working with DragonflyBSD or one of the established ones?

Eivind, FreeBSD developer who may or may not be interested in another project, depending.

Re:Sounds bleak

[laffer1]

I wanted to create a desktop system which does not seem to fit in the goals of the other projects. OpenBSD focuses on security. Security is important, but too much can cause usability issues. Portability can be very difficult with a full desktop enviornment. NetBSD is therefore out. DragonFly is innovative and they seem to want a lean, mean system. A desktop doesn't fit the bill there. Finally, FreeBSD seems to be consumed with tuning for very large hardware. Its a great server platform, but home users won't have more than say 4 cores any time soon. SMP is important for the future, but not 32 way machines. We don't use niagras at home. I do have a sparc64 port going, but its mostly for my own sun machine. I don't expect that to be popular or long maintained.

Since I started, FreeBSD did announce they would attempt better integration with Gnome and a new desktop agenda. I don't know if it will go anywhere or not. I hope it does. PC-BSD and DesktopBSD are just distros. I didn't want to continue the linux tradition of countless distros. A fork allows me to experiment with things I might not be able to do in FreeBSD. It also allows my project to fail or suceed on its own. I also had hoped that a new project might allow me to attract new developers. If you follow some of the FreeBSD mailing lists, you'll see users are regularly suggesting new features and often include patches. I just don't see many of those patches getting commited. Some of them are good patches. I don't want the Netcraft jokes to be true. In order for BSD to have a future, it needs to evolve.

I also noticed a pattern with joining BSD projects. DragonFly and OpenBSD both started with a falling out. I like FreeBSD, and until very recently I saw a great deal of code ownership as mentioned in the e-mail/article. One of my key project goals is to be more open about patches from users. I know a lot of people who submitted a patch to FreeBSD and were treated poorly. I don't want that to happen in my project.

Re:Sounds bleak

[bplipschitz]

Pft, when I started downloading from the intarweb from home in 1991, I would have to dial in to my favourite UNIX BBS and submit a download request as a batch process which would be completed the next time that BBS connected to the net. A few days later I might have my little text file, if I was lucky. Getting swimsuit babes .gif files in 256 glorious colours and FidoNET email downloaded in .QWK packages was great. Those were the days. I'd dial-in, download my subscribed mail, hang up, read it, reply to it, then dial-up again to upload my replies.

Ach, when I was a wee lad, I had to shovel coal into the back o' the PDP-9 1/2 to start the day. Aye, then hit the shorting bar on the Vibroplex to see if the next station were yet awake. A tobacco tin on the sounder made for a mighty report!

Uphill both ways, in knee-deep snow yet! Ach, ye young pups donna know what ye are goin' on about. . .

Re:Sounds bleak

[Panaflex]

Hey.. sorry Grumps. I spent too much time abroad.. learned how to spell everything wrong. Three packs, heck, I'm up to two lighters!

Re:Sounds bleak

[Eivind Eklund]

Actually, creating a desktop system fits well with the goals of the FreeBSD project - I'm just not sure it fits well with the culture at this point.

I like your goals. I'd like to have a talk with you abot aspects of the system - I've been thinking very much along the same lines for 6-7 years now, I've just decided that my personal situation/energy level hasn't been right for starting a fork. I have, however, thought a lot about how to do these things so they could work.

I'll pop you a mail, and we can go further from there.

Eivind.

Re:Sounds bleak

[devphaeton]

BTW, I too was a modem user...

Has it actually gotten to the point now where "modem use" is in the same category of archaicism as 80486s, shareware, hotelchat and.... oh wait.. shit...

No seriously. Does the dialup experience now precede the current majority of Internet users? I must be a late adopter of broadband. I was on dialup from 1997 until about 2001 or so. Put my own (first) computer together in 1999, ran Intel Solaris 7 on it (bleh), then various linuxes (like Caldera Openlinux 2.2 bleh), and made a part-time jump to FreeBSD around 4.7, going full-time in 5.0. I lurked Slashdot for a long time before joining sometime in 2000, and there's been a conflict of ownership with my original userid, so I eventually had to re-register.

Oh wait... i'm getting off topic here...

Re:Sounds bleak

[devphaeton]

I don't have any skills or abilities to contribute, but I find this to be an interesting conversation between you guys, and maybe I've witnessed a rather historic moment in geekdom. I hope it all works out well (whether anything happens or not), but not at the expense of any current *BSDs.

"Distro-ing" the BSD system as has been done a couple of times (PC-BSD, et al) bugs me- it's like "lets take the worst part of the Linux development model and use it to dilute the project(s) that have it together" sort of thing. I'm glad to see a new effort (midnightbsd) starting as a fork instead, and also starting without a huge falling out.

On a whim (nostalgia, maybe?) I put the latest Ubuntu on one of my workstations just to 'see what linux is up to these days'. Bleh... I wouldn't go so far as to say it gave me the 'heebie jeebies', but I will say that I'm probably done with linux for the rest of my life.

I don't want the netcraft jokes to be true either, but there *are* times that I worry about the future.

Re:Sounds bleak

[SillyNickName4me]

I think it depends on the nature of the GPLed project and how you use it.

What would the result be of using a GPLed library in the kernel with regards to the licence of the kernel?

Re:Sounds bleak

[tepples]

What would the result be of using a GPLed library in the kernel with regards to the licence of the kernel?

Such a kernel can be distributed only pursuant to the GPL, absent an exception from the library's author.

Re:Sounds bleak

[SillyNickName4me]

tepples said:

Such a kernel can be distributed only pursuant to the GPL, absent an exception from the library's author.

That is also my understanding, since it is linked against that library.

To Eivind, this is why I see a legal issue, assuming of course that a BSD distribution would want to distibute the resulting kernel with a BSD style license. This of course is not a problem for GPLed userland tools and such, there you are entirely correct for what I can tell.

Re:Sounds bleak

[jimstapleton]

how is that trolling?

And if you think I'm anti-bsd (the closest that could be to trolling), I use BSD on my *nix machines and wont even consider touching linux again for a long time.

Re:Sounds bleak

[Eivind Eklund]

It's correct that it can only be distributed pursuant to the GPL. The problem is that the GPL prohibits distribution for binaries linked from both BSD and GPLed code, due to the additional restrictions added by the BSD license (license reproduction).

As the restrictive license, GPL is what sets the terms here - it's just that these terms are "can't include anything but GPL". There's been some rethorical moves to try to argue around this (e.g, saying that the GPL requires attribution anyway and the BSD license reproduction is just a form of attribution). Having experience with creating products based on free software, I'll say that my estimation is that there is NO WAY that will stand up in a court of law. License reproduction is a major hassle when you create products, and as a such it is a notable extra restriction.

Eivind.

Re:Sounds bleak

[SillyNickName4me]

Good to see that we agree for once :)

Very well put...

[chaoskitty]

While there will be those who see this as flamebait, it's high time someone puts into words what many of us are thinking - namely, that something's not quite right, and we should look to those with more experience to give us some clues...

Re:Very well put...

[BrokenHalo]

While there will be those who see this as flamebait,...

Well, it certainly isn't that. The author minces no words when apportioning some of the blame to himself for causes of NetBSD's stagnation.

It's all a bit sad, really. I have a NetBSD server chugging along in a cabinet here that hasn't been rebooted in ~2 years, but that is largely because the updates I have noticed haven't really made it worth the trouble of upgrading.

Re:Very well put...

[dosius]

So if he feels that way and can't take the project back, what's stopping a fork? NetBSD's been forked before. I've thought of building my own project (hasn't gotten off the ground yet x.x) off NetBSD and I'm still planning to.

-uso.

Re:Very well put...

[The Famous Brett Wat]

what many of us are thinking - namely, that something's not quite right

For a moment there, I thought you were quoting "V for Vendetta".

one more brick in the wall

[macadamia_harold]

They've already confirmed that OpenBSD is dying... looks like NetBSD is next.

Re:one more brick in the wall

[Alcoholic Synonymous]

Pay more attention next time. That is outdated news. OpenBSD made it through by picking up some major sponsors, including other F/OSS projects that use part of OpenBSD's code in thier projects.

Re:one more brick in the wall

[Kjella]

Pay more attention next time. That is outdated news. OpenBSD made it through by picking up some major sponsors, including other F/OSS projects that use part of OpenBSD's code in thier projects.

So have they found an income stream, or did they merely manage to secure funding to keep on operating for a while? No, I'm not trolling, I'm asking. I know it's a lot easier to get a fixed donation, at the same time it rarely fixes the underlying problem.

Re:one more brick in the wall

[smittyoneeach]

OpenBSD made it through by picking up some major sponsors

Like him or not, TdR's leadership is the meta-driver for OpenBSD.

Re:one more brick in the wall

[kv9]

They've already confirmed that OpenBSD is dying... looks like NetBSD is next.

i call bullshit. here's an article discussing NetBSD over at IBM developerWorks (that i submitted, but got rejected of course; i guess only BSD is dying news gets in nowadays -- "grousing"? what the fuck does that even mean.)

looks to me that the author of this email is just another jaded old coder that got his commit privs revoked. maybe something good will come out of this -- look at what Theo did.

NetBSD is a pretty mature OS. maybe he could just fix the threading issues and whatever else irks him, and just stop stirring shit up.

just my two 0.02RON

Re:one more brick in the wall

[NuclearDog]

"looks to me that the author of this email is just another jaded old coder that got his commit privs revoked. maybe something good will come out of this -- look at what Theo did."

Funny you should mention Theo.

This guy (Charles) was one of the members of the core group around the time they decided to give Theo the boot, and then was the main obstacle for 7 months while Theo tried to get some sort of CVS commit access back before he (Theo) finally just forked NetBSD and took his >10'000 lines of diffs and several drivers (that users were requesting) somewhere else.

ND

Re:one more brick in the wall

[Anonymous Coward]

Like him or not, TdR's leadership is the meta-driver for OpenBSD.

I hate his guts, but will be the first to concede that he's an excellent engineer with a damned fine OS.

Re:one more brick in the wall

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe - but regardless of the rimjob folks like to give Theo over how important the project is, I personally hope OpenBSD does die. There are lots of companies that can pick up openssh and the lot without having to worry about the ego of Mr DeRat. OpenBSD has survived in spite of Theo, not because of him.

Re:one more brick in the wall

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh mom, you know I monitor all the traffic from your computer...

Theo

Re:one more brick in the wall

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, Charles, that's not nice.

Re:one more brick in the wall

[mccoma]

Ego and need to feed that ego is why Theo and the OpenBSD / OpenSSH developers have made OpenSSH so good.

Re:one more brick in the wall

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, isn't that a trifle Oedipal...

Netcraft?

[DavidpFitz]

Has Netcraft weighed in on this yet?

</troll>

Re:Netcraft?

[gbobeck]

Has Netcraft weighed in on this yet?

I think I heard a responce from the Netcraft trolls...
<troll>
It is now official. Netcraft confirms: "NetBSD is thriving"
</troll>

Re:Netcraft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here we are, a link to the original anti-troll. The "BSD is dying" trolls started "dying" shortly after this was posted. An earlier attempt called BSD is dying is dying was also quite amusing, but didn't have as far-reaching effects.

Re:Netcraft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. They said that they use BSD themselves , so fuck off!

I can't wait

[grammar fascist]

I can't wait for the "Netcraft confirms it" trolls.

Hang on, there's another angle, here.

It is now official. Netcraft confirms: "NetBSD is dying" trolls are dying.

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered "NetBSD is dying" troll community when Slashdot confirmed that NetBSD is actually dying...

Re:I can't wait

[Snap E Tom]

Wait, wait, wait. Netcraft didn't confirm anything.

NetBSD confirms it: NetBSD is dying!

Re:I can't wait

[Aqws]

Well, I see Samzenpus's "keep-the-netcraft-comments-to-a-minimum dept" is very effective...

Re:I can't wait

[Mr. Gus]

This was probably just some social experiment to see how many people would post "Netcraft confirms" references.

Re:I can't wait

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw the "I can't wait for the "Netcraft confirms it" trolls."

I want to know if it runs on Linux...

Not a great loss, I'm sorry to say.

[Cicero382]

The great advantage that NetBSD had was its fast and secure network facilities. Unfortunately, for many potential users the problems far outweigh the benefits. And the situation has been getting worse for some time now.

Bye-bye NetBSD, it was good while it lasted.

Re:Not a great loss, I'm sorry to say.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

The great advantage that NetBSD had was its fast and secure network facilities.

What? I thought netBSDs big advantage was portability.

Bye-bye NetBSD, it was good while it lasted.

netBSDs not going anywhere.

Re:Not a great loss, I'm sorry to say.

[Anonymous Coward]

What? I thought netBSDs big advantage was portability.

HAHAHA! Advantage?! Look up the word in a dictionary. I explain further, but this troll dignifies no further response.

Re:Not a great loss, I'm sorry to say.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Hmmmmn, I think you read my post out of context?

netBSDs advantage over other BSDs is that it's portable. It's not so fast as freeBSD, not as secure as openBSD, but much easier to port to a new architecture than either.

I presume you're a windows user who doesn't see the advantage of portability ;-)

Re:Not a great loss, I'm sorry to say.

[Anonymous Coward]

The names are spelled NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD.

Re:Not a great loss, I'm sorry to say.

[oscartheduck]

There's nothing different about your spellings; you may have meant something along the lines of "The correct grammar for the names is to capitalise the inital letters in addition to the BSD."

Re:Not a great loss, I'm sorry to say.

[Doctor Memory]

Problems? I wasn't aware that NetBSD really had any problems, per se, it just didn't have all the features that many other OSes had. I mean, if you're picking NetBSD for its network stack, chances are its primitive support for sleep mode in notebooks is pretty much a non-issue.

Sounds Interesting

[awss82]

It appears that it is dying, but I think it is not going to affect many. I mean many people use other free operating systems but not many use BSD. And I guess that's the reason why it is dying.

Re:Sounds Interesting

[FST777]

Who the hell modded this interesting. If that meant Karma-Funny, I didn't even smile, let alone LOL.

Just in case parent is serious: NetBSD != BSD. And a lot of servers run *BSD, even quite a few desktops run *BSD. If NetBSD dies because of bad management, this can have two effects: a hit to the head of the other OSS-BSD projects (devs and users losing trust) or more devs to said OSS-BSD projects, thus igniting innovation there a bit further (short-term).

In the long-term, however, it would be great if competition between N/O/F*BSD could continue untroubled. So yes, this CAN affect many.

Re:Sounds Interesting

[Bootvis]

A bit off-topic and shameless fanboyism but with a project like Desktop BSD enjoying all the pleasures of a BSD is very easy and noobfriendly.

Nature doing what it does best...

[Chaffar]

Survival of the fittest... the OSes that don't cut it (or that don't keep up) die off, the others learn from their mistakes and keep on going. I'm trying to find an analogy that would describe the survival of Windoze against all odds if the previous statement was true, but can't find one :\

Re:Nature doing what it does best...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you have to step outside our galaxy to find a similar situation, like the wraith in the pegasus galaxy.

Re:Nature doing what it does best...

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows works, albeit badly and with lots of annoyances, for LOTS of people; whereas NetBSD works very well and powerfully, but only for a few, technically savy, people. It isn't survival of the fittest, it is survival of the dumbest, by which I mean, survival of the lowest common denominator.

Also, don't forget that if Window's reign of hell was to come to an end there would be the world's biggest crash in the IT sector - think about the number of technical support firms, specialists, magazines, books, whole sub-sectors of the industry that would collapse if there wasn't a vacuous, hole-filled OS at the centre of the IT universe.

Never underestimate the combined power of stupidity of the lowest common denominator and the maintaining of the status quo.

Re:Nature doing what it does best...

[Filip22012005]

Pandas! Huge, slow, will only eat certain rare foods, don't like members of the opposite sex around. They should've died ages ago. Yet they're strangely still around. They may look like bears...

Re:Nature doing what it does best...

[Silver Sloth]

Windows survives, nay prospers, because it is the 'fittest' at surviving in the market place. If one of the other OSes could persuade practically every PC manufacturer to install it as default then Windows would be dead within months. So, as an analogy, lets try cockroaches, which, whilst not particularly appealing (except to other cockroaches) come as default in any environment (and yes, I know that the biology doesn't stand up)

Re:Nature doing what it does best...

[Skrynesaver]

Survival of the fittest... is often misunderstood, while niche specialist species can are usually fantastic at what they do,

• Arctic beech, grows very slowly and close to the ground so snowfall doesn't break limbs
• Most species specific parasites
• and NetBSD, running a firewall on your toaster

However broad generalists often survive after specialists have become extinct, most rodents are not particularly good at any one role but can muddle on in many roles and breed quickly enough that the loss of a living for 20% of the population doesn't result in extermination of the species.

I suppose given the forum, Windows is akin to Tribbles pretty much useless but cute/useable enough that people are loath to phone the exterminater.

I feel a humourous article on OS/evolution parallels comming on, but I'm too busy/lazy to write it.

Re:Nature doing what it does best...

[hclyff]

Pandas are still around because of "survival of the cutest". Much like OSX.

Re:Nature doing what it does best...

[bky1701]

I'm trying to find an analogy that would describe the survival of Windoze against all odds if the previous statement was true, but can't find one :\

It's called "God", AKA Bill Gates.

Re:Nature doing what it does best...

[eggsome]

Dear god, that's the hands down funniest comment I've read in months!
Now, where do I edit my sig...

Re:Nature doing what it does best...

[peragrin]

Actually it fit, cockroaches aslo carry dieses which can hurt you just like windows. You need special protections (ie sealed plastic containers) to keep cockroaches out, and you need secial third party solutions to protect your data from windows viruses.

I wonder if Redmond would survive a nuclear explosion? hmm wait is that helicopters I am hearing......

Re:Nature doing what it does best...

[westlake]

If one of the other OSes could persuade practically every PC manufacturer to install it as default then Windows would be dead within months

Remember BootCamp?

There is a twenty-five year backlist of MSDOS and Windows titles that do not exist for the OSX or Linux platforms.

In the real world, users migrate to an alternative OS at a pace that can best be described as somewhat less than glacial. If they move at all. Apple has never captured more than 2% of the world market.

Re:Nature doing what it does best...

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows hasn't survived, it is a rotting corpse that maggots, bugs, and viruses feed on. Very remeniscent of Weekend at Bernies. MS is just keeping up appearances.

Re:Nature doing what it does best...

[nuzak]

Discounting human influences on both habitat destruction and subsequent preservation, they're still around because they eat bamboo, which damn near nothing else does. It's nice to have a niche.

And they they are bears. It's the so-called "red pandas" (aka firefoxes) that are closer to racoons.

I hope NetBSD survives

[WJMoore]

I still have a soft spot for NetBSD, it's minimalist nature is something I like. It was the first UNIX I ever installed too IIRC. I hope that the issues get resolved or if necessary an active fork is made and it lives on.

Re:I hope NetBSD survives

[mistermark]

>I still have a soft spot for NetBSD

Me too, for me it also was the first UNIX I installed (on a SparcStation2) and got to learn the command-line in a proper way (imho) and I could only recommend anyone willing to learn UNIX to start with NetBSD.

At this moment I still have one machine running NetBSD, a 33MHz Mac LC475 (yes, I'm aware it's 2006). The server can be found here: http://mark.is-a-geek.org/

>if necessary an active fork is made

Well, don't look any further than OpenBSD :D

Re:I hope NetBSD survives

[teh_chrizzle]

I hope that the issues get resolved or if necessary an active fork is made and it lives on.

it did, it's called OpenBSD :-)

Re:I hope NetBSD survives

[rjamestaylor]

Workpad z50 with NetBSD was my mobile solution that allowed me to make massive changes to a legacy application back in 2000(*). Took that machine with me all over Orange County, CA, so that I could work without interruption. Couldn't afford a laptop at the time. Very fond memories of getting everything working on that Workpad z50. Heck, I even learned about NetBSD for the discontinued z50 from Slashdot.

(*)The changes were to a COBOL application. The changes were to produce, on request, XML output of all reports for web dissemination. The task was urgent, boring as Hell (assuming Hell is boring; YMMV) and I could not do it in the office. I needed vi and sed and the Workpad z50 w/ NetBSD was the thing that allowed me to get away and work all day without interruption. Park, beach, microbrewery... all accessible with NetBSD and my z50.

Re:I hope NetBSD survives

[nuzak]

BSD is only minimalist compared to Linux. L4 is minimalist. Not much you can really do with bare L4 though.

He may be right...

[vga_init]

He may be right that NetBSD has its problems, but it's unfair to say that any software project doesn't. Also, I still believe NetBSD was/is a good project, and while BSD sometimes get the short end of the stick when it comes to reputation, we owe a lot to the work that went in to those systems. Times change...new systems come, and old systems go. NetBSD still has quite a way left to go before its done, but when it is I will remember it fondly.

A Sad Day? Or maybe a new start?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay... I'm just gonna sound off here, as AC.. mostly because this could start a holy war and i don't feel like karma whoring. Which is agaisnt my intentions.

This is simple, I've been a long time linux supporter, user, and contributor. Not one of these slashdot citizens that everytime a new "feature" of Windows version "X" is leaked, go and bitch about installing "Linux distro flavor of the month" on there machine and never use windows again. Then turn around and get the new version of Windows "X".

With that said, this news is both sad, and slightly hopeful for me. As much as I love Linux. I've had a soft spot for NetBSD. Mostly because it can run on anything, really portable and good for embed, applications were Linux is just to heavy. Also for securiy, its one of the best.

I'm also hopeful. NetBSD is a niche' OS, and one hell of a good one. Maybe the light of this could help get people to turn the project around. I for one and downloading the entire source tree as I type. For one, so i havee a virgin copy of release 4.0 and the latest CVS, and for two... to see if maybe i could help out with something. If only in a small way.

Even if I don't plan on using NetBSD on my desktop, which is SuSE 10.1 btw, I beleive it still as much to do in the niche applications, because oif we let niche OSes fail. And one OS expands to do everything, we all lose, and end up in another Microsoft Windows style mess.

Thats my 2 cents for the night.

Obligatory quotes

[zensonic]

"I sense a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of toasters cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced..."

Re:Obligatory quotes

[TheoMurpse]

You know, I'm a little upset that NetBSD never quite caught up with Linux: did anyone finally port NetBSD to a dead badger?

Re:Obligatory quotes

[ConceptJunkie]

I thought the Amiga died a decade ago.

Re:Obligatory quotes

[PakProtector]

My roommate is/was on the NetBSD dev team, and at LinuxWorld last year they had a toaster than ran on BSD. Link Here.

Doesn't seem right

[bobintetley]

I love NetSBD. It's stable, it's fast, the package management is great (and upto date), NetBSD folks don't seem to feel the need to evangalise and beat people over the head with their OS choice. A lot of interesting development is also done in NetBSD (like integrating Xen into NetBSD 3.0, the CCD driver, RAIDframe, etc).

I don't understand what this guy's on about - I use it and love it, so do lots of other people, we have upto date software and a great base system. How exactly is NetBSD irrelevant again? Is he bitching because of a lack of marketshare compared to other BSD/Linux distros? In a world of free software, why exactly does that matter?

It's disingenuous to bitch about the things he does as if they were important - flash file system? So what? Journaled file system? There's a very good reason for the omission of journalling and you can't tell me this guy doesn't know about softdeps.

Just sounds to me like this guy is pissed off with not getting some kind of glory for his work and it's all sour grapes.

Re:Doesn't seem right

[bobintetley]

And you sound like a hopeless fanboy who won't face facts even when the founder of the damn project is telling you it's a bunch of outdated crap.

He was arguing that the project is irrelevant when it quite clearly isn't and has its place.Just because it doesn't have some of the features of Linux/FreeBSD doesn't make it irrelevant or useless. I was just pointing out that many people find it extremely useful for certain roles (I personally think it's a great, solid server OS).

Also, he's one of the founders, not THE founder. And a founder who was pushed out 5 years ago at that. Think he's perhaps a little bitter?

Oh, and calling me names makes you sound like a dick :-)

Re:Doesn't seem right

[Guybrush_T]

I used to love NetBSD. The package management is indeed great. BUT :

• About stability, it worked well on a 486, but I never managed to run it stable on a brand-new machine with an Athlon (the kernel was always falling in vm_page_fault traps) whereas linux worked with no issue (hence not a hardware issue, more something like an AMD issue?).
• About speed, again, unfortunately, linux performed better.

I really wanted to stick to NetBSD, but after 1 year trying to have it functionnal, I installed linux, and this day, all my problems were gone.

I'm afraid that the great thing in NetBSD - which is multiple platforms support - will soon be irrelevant, since linux already supports all the currently-used architectures.

In all case, I hope NetBSD will survive and become more usable. But as said, it needs a lot of work.

Re:Doesn't seem right

[kamasutra]

There are people who use Windows 98 and find it sufficient for their needs. That doesn't make it any less irrelevant or GENERALLY useless.

I'm not saying the same is true for NetBSD. I wouldn't know, since I don't use it. I'm just saying your line of thinking is off.

Re:Doesn't seem right

[codemachine]

> It's disingenuous to bitch about the things he does as if they were important - flash file system? So what? Journaled file system?

Flash file system is very important for embedded work. NetBSD could've been a much bigger player in the embedded space had they not fallen behind Linux, especially the uclibc/arm toolchain. Journaling file systems are highly desired by many people, including those in the project itself.

The fact is that NetBSD does run on some of the embedded systems that I'm working on, and might even run faster for that matter, with a cleaner codebase. But given that it doesn't support as many devices, and has no real feature advantages, Linux becomes the default choice. Just as in the desktop space, Linux is better supported, and you gain the advantages of the many other people working with the same toolchain as you (more stuff found on Google, etc).

On the desktop, it is much the same. A few years back, we ran an open source undergrad lab on NetBSD instead of Linux (mostly because we had a NetBSD developer on staff, and we figured why not). While it offered a very similar environment and similar selection of software (though Linux folks ended up installing gnu tools for color ls, etc), it really didn't offer any advantages over the Linux deskops. We found that certain features we were needing (pam, cups, etc) were always going to be ready "in a future release", whereas Linux worked right now. Support for proprietary software was also easier under Linux (though most was possible on NetBSD with Linux emulation).

In the end, even the NetBSD developer decided that we should be running Linux in our labs.

That said, the last few NetBSD releases have really packed in some good features and have shown to have great performance. Integration with Xen is also great move for the future.

From reading through the comments here, I think the biggest challenge NetBSD has going for it is perception. Everyone still thinks of it as the BSD with the main goal of being portable (while FreeBSD is "general" or for performance, OpenBSD for security). While it is true that their clean codebase is very portable, including the pkg-src tree, that is not all they are about. Their performance rivals and sometimes surpasses FreeBSD's. Their security record is quite good, likely due to a clean codebase. It is already a good general purpose OS, but most people don't think of using it as such.

Hard to say where the project should go. If they can get their feature set closer to on par with Linux, they'd be very competitive. But would anyone use it if Linux is "good enough"? Can they get past their stigma of just being "portable"? More competition in the form of an open source Solaris can't help their cause either.

Regardless, I imagine they'll just keep on coding anyhow, regardless of what happens. I don't see it as a dying project at all.

Re:Doesn't seem right

[drwho]

NetBSD has really fallen behind in the embedded space. I blame some of this on Wasabi systems, who took NetBSD embedded stuff and went closed-source with it. They've got some NetBSD developers on staff. They've got an arrogant, anti-Linux attitude and pushy sales people. They have a really high price for their software, which still doesn't run on the platform I want to develop for (certain MIPSel chips). Linux does all of what I needed for free, does it well, and there's even OpenWRT
in quite active development.

I was at a recent Linux Users' group meeting and a fellow there pointed out that NetBSD counts every variation of architecture as a different platform, where as Linux only counts major changes in architecure as a new platform. If you count the platforms in the same manner, then Linux is ahead...and far ahead.

But a biggest question is how much this portability really matters to a lot of people. I got rid of my Sun3 a couple of years ago, it was my last NetBSD machine. Sure, it's nice to have an OS that will work on old hardware such as this but so what? What is there to draw new developers and new energy to the project?

I don't think that NetBSD will 'die', but it could become so obscure that the vast majority of the planet doesn't know of it's existance. If maintenance dwindles to the point where a major security hole is discovered and not fixed, then there will be a sharp drop in the number of users.

As much as I find Theo DeRaadt an frustrating and conceited person, he's brought a lot of vitality to OpenBSD, enough so that it keeps going strong in spite of his disenfranchisement of many people. I think the only reason why some people stay with NetBSD is their strong hatred of Theo.

Re:Doesn't seem right

[Anonymous Coward]

> but I never managed to run it stable on a brand-new machine with an Athlon

Hmm, strange, I'm using NetBSD 3.0 on Athlon X2 4400+
(ASUS A8N-E, GENERIC.MPACPI kernel) without any problem.
What's the difference between yours and mine?

Re:Doesn't seem right

[Anonymous Coward]

Good points. It's a shame Hannum didn't mention some of these success stories.

NetBSD is (to date) the only *BSD with working support for dom0 and dom0 in both Xen 2 and Xen 3. The FreeBSD Xen port appeared to run into a lot of trouble, and the OpenBSD guys just don't seem to be interested.

And NetBSD's CGD is probably the finest disk crypto implementation. It certainly beats that dm-crypt pile of crud that Linux uses.

So NetBSD sure as hell IS leading edge in a number of important areas. It's still a great OS. The real problem the project appears to have is people (and their personalities).

Re:Doesn't seem right

[Anonymous Coward]

Er... could it be that he has memory hardware problems that are exercised by NetBSD's buffer cache, but not by Linux?

Re:Doesn't seem right

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, interesting. My impression is exactly the opposite. I found linux slower and considerably less stable (did anyone else hit the bug in iptables in 2.6.17 recently?), but debian apt-get more superior to ports. I keep Netbsd on the server and Debian on my laptop which I use for developing.

I guess it depends on particular hardware what OS performs better, but in general I found dealing with 2.6.x linux kernel lineage considerably more painful than with NetBSD.

Re:Doesn't seem right

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the space I would find NetBSD appropriate.. a friend of mine still runs it and it's just like you and a few others have said.. It runs on all sorts of grand old hardware (HPUX boxes, some of the SGIs, Sun, M68K boxes, etc.). NetBSD 1.5.x and 1.6 seemed to work the best overall.. I think they don't support threading at all; NPTL or the like provides a userspace threading though. This is where they're hitting problems.. if you loook at the overall complexity of the newer Linux kernels where threading, locking that usually works (that's the tricky part.. finding all the stuff that does have to have a lock), ACPI support, etc... each of these adds a major amount of extra code. Particularly locking, this could require alteration to every driver. I was seeing quite a lot the situation where NetBSD was running great on the exotics, and blowing up on the PC.

Re:Doesn't seem right

[mdhoover]

First I'll preface this with the fact that I am a linux zealout.

I'm afraid that the great thing in NetBSD - which is multiple platforms support - will soon be irrelevant, since linux already supports all the currently-used architectures.

For the well trodden path (ix86, ppc, ultrasparc) you are correct, linux works well.

However, once you leave those for say

• mac-m68k - broken ADB, broken serial console - you have a nice brick, and the maintainer is asleep at the wheel and has been so since 2.2 kernel
• sun4m - hypersparc broken, SMP supersparc broken, but at least this may be fixed sometime

On the glibc side look at all the arches disappearing into non-core maintenance in the glibc-ports tree

NetBSD is there to keep the old stuff running where everyone else on the planet tends to leave them to die.

Re:Doesn't seem right

[Anonymous Coward]

About speed, again, unfortunately, linux performed better.

I had a data mining application which was reading through a large'ish file many times, looking for links, statistics, etc. I tried various systems and the fastest (by FAR) was NetBSD. Then FreeBSD, then (believe it or not) OpenBSD and then linux. It all came down to NetBSD's super fast Unified Buffer Cache (quicker than the other UBC's). The data file being read many times (512MB) was over half of the available RAM. In this case, it seemed as if Linux was broken. Because it was even very many times slower than OpenBSD, which does not employ a UBC. I tried latest versions of SuSE and Ubuntu and in other areas they also seemed to be incredibly slow compared with NetBSD.

I have NEVER had NetBSD crash on me.

PS. I am primarily an OpenBSD and FreeBSD user (NetBSD's speed advantage over FreeBSD was in the single digit percentages).

BSD License

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the suposed strength of the BSD license is its complete freedom? Just fork it and call it iBSD or eBSD or maybe mBSD get some of that IBM mlife money.... SuperBSD, or Fuck-NetBSD-BSD. Since Linus seems to have such disdane for the GPL recently, maybe they could recruit him to lead it and call it LinBSD.

Re:BSD License

[Merle Darling]

Sure, you meant it as a joke, but provided hordes of rabid teenage Linux zealots don't follow him to the new project that could actually be a good idea. He seems to want to distance himself from the FSF anyway, I'd imagine he regrets getting involved with those nuts in the first place.

Of course I'd rather see him working on FreeBSD myself. =)

Re:BSD License

[jimstapleton]

I agree, if NetBSD goes (I hope it doesn't), I hope the devs go to Free or Open BSD. By consolodating development, it can really help the projects move faster, and maybe get driver support to the point where we can easily compete with Linux.

Re:BSD License

[spauldo]

Of course I'd rather see him working on FreeBSD myself. =)

He's very effective in Linux because he's the top dog with Linux.

FreeBSD doesn't work like that. I doubt Linus would have nearly the effect he does with a system that has the type of management that FreeBSD does. Note that I'm not dissing FreeBSD's management or Linus at all, but most of the things that people admire Linus for wouldn't have happened at all if he was a FreeBSD developer. It's the whole committee vs. dictator thing.

Linus isn't known for playing well with others. The same qualities that make him so well suited for running the Linux kernel project make him pretty much unsuitable for FreeBSD.

Re:BSD License

[jimstapleton]

oops, misread that, didn't see Linus' name there. No, I don't think he'd be good for the BSD projects.

Re:BSD License

[DrSkwid]

plus he's not a very good coder

Re:BSD License

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaaa haaa haaa. Yeah, you're much better, naturally.

I bet your "proof" is that some BSD is "much cleaner" than
Linux's codebase and/or Linux is only decent because the money
behind it. Of course, those are just self evident and don't
need any proof, right?

Fuck off.

Re:BSD License

[DrSkwid]

I can't make a table but I know a bad one when I see it.

How many BSDs do we need?

[QuantumFTL]

In a world with Linux, Solaris, OS X (a BSD, sorta), a zillion types of Windows, QNX, etc... why do we need so many BSDs? I mean, if someone wants to make their own version of an OSS project, that's up to them, but if you want to be relevant, you have to offer something new and relevant. If I'm going to run BSD on a server, I'm going to run something security oriented like OpenBSD so I can spend more time developing my applications.

I think the NetBSD folks have done some great work in the past, and it deserves to be remembered, but maybe it's best that they apply their efforts to some more relevant projects, such as another BSD, or better yet, Linux, which has been constantly lagging behind OpenBSD in security and the like.

Diversity is a powerful part of the FOSS model, however it can also dilute things by spreading resources to thin. Thanks for your hard work guys -- lets move on to the next challenge!

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[Draco_es]

NetBSD has features that others don't and in some aspects is innovative(or at least different), so it's valuable(for its own users and for the whole OSS "universe"). What we don't need is the zillionth Linux distro, which just repackages applications in a different way.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[despisethesun]

I think it's ridiculous that people complain about how many BSDs there are when there are so many redundant Linux distros out there. Each of the BSDs has a different development focus, making them all more relevant and important than any of the few dozen Debian-based distros, for example, which all really don't do much to build on what Debian has already done. When people quit starting up go-nowhere Linux distros and contribute their efforts to "more relevant projects", guys like you can go ahead and tell these guys to quit wasting their time on NetBSD.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[evilviper]

In a world with Linux, Solaris, OS X (a BSD, sorta), a zillion types of Windows, QNX, etc... why do we need so many BSDs?

Funny that you mention Linux in there... as if there AREN'T hundreds of different and somewhat incompatible Linux distros. Why do we need so many of them? If we all would just settle on Slackware, the ONE TRUE DISTRO, everything would be perfect.

Diversity is a powerful part of the FOSS model, however it can also dilute things by spreading resources to thin.

I don't think so at all. First, similarities between the BSDs mean many developers contribute to several different projects. It also means work done on one is rather easy to port to another. If more distros can bring in just a few more developers, then the net result is a positive.

Besides, OSS is pretty well self-regulating. When developers find that the OS they're working on is getting behind the times, either they port the relevant code from another, or they jump ship to one that actually does what they need. Many different OSS projects have been abandoned, consolidated, or had branches die and developers return.

Sometimes one size doesn't fit all, and a fork can have benefits for both.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[Eivind Eklund]

You're in a funny place to complain when you have hundreds of operating systems to your camp, all called "distros"...

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[KlaymenDK]

Well, look at it as subprojects of a single master project.

NetBSD is doing everything under the sun to make BSD crosscompatible; FreeBSD ditto for ease-of-use (sorta); OpenBSD for the ultimate in security.

These BSDs, while distinct, keep tabs on each other and occasionally assimilate what works. If we had just one OpeNeFreBSD, all of that would be going on in a single OS (imagine the stability of that).

Hovewer, it may well be that NetBSD --and others!-- are due for a long hard look at what they are doing, and if their once goal is still a relevant goal.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[cyclop]

If we all would just settle on Slackware, the ONE TRUE DISTRO, everything would be perfect.

(rumours start in the plaza)

- Slackware? Hah! No package management!The one true distro is Debian and its mighty apt-get!
- What are you saying? It's clearly Gentoo! You compile everything from source!
- Gentoo is for ricers! People that want their work done use Ubuntu!
- Ubuntu? I'm more comfortable with Suse and Novell support...
- What? Bear that RPM hell? Go use Knoppix!
- What about RPMs? On my Fedora work so well...
...

(everything in flames)

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[kestasjk]

This is true to a certain extend, but good BSD code is shared amongst all the BSDs. The example in the article was Bluetooth support, it originated from NetBSD but is now used in all BSDs. PF originated in OpenBSD and is now used in all BSDs, SSH originated in OpenBSD and is now used everywhere. It's a liberal license and this is one of the benefits.

But yes, I think anyone working on the NetBSD kernel is wasting thier time, along with DragonflyBSD. Lots of NetBSD code will still be around in other projects, so it's certainly not useless, but it'd be better to work on a more actively maintained OS, imho.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[pe1chl]

Do those BSD versions actually share something?
Different Linux distributions at least use the same kernel. From what I read in the article, it seems that he is discussing a lot of deficiencies in the NetBSD kernel. That would not be an issue when all BSD versions had the same kernel (or it would be an issue for all of them, but that is not how it is described).

Maybe there is no place for so many different kernels, that all need to be maintained by (groups of) people.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[FST777]

No they don't, only heritage. But when something relevant is developed for one of the BSD's, the other will soon port it over, since it is easier to cross-port between the BSD's then from Linux to BSD.

The fact that each BSD has it's own kernel AND it's own userland is what makes it so great: each project has a different set of goals, and they are reached by focussing on that one, without having to think about what the other projects would like in the kernel.

Eventually, the projects can grow apart as far as you can think. But since basic functionality is often shared, that won't happen. And thus they abide :)

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[HuguesT]

All the linux distributions have the same kernel and the same toolchain. The rest is just package management and application choices.

In contrasts all the BSDs have significant different kernels.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[dolmen.fr]

it is easier to cross-port between the BSD's then from Linux to BSD.

It is not even possible due to license constraints, except of course if the author of the Linux code releases it also under the BSD license.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[fferret]

- Gentoo is for ricers! People that want their work done use Ubuntu!

Perhaps I am too genteel to understand this insult. Ricers? Please explain. (BTW, My workstation was Gentoo until the mobo died, I'm now falling back on my Ubuntu laptop...)

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[LizardKing]

All the linux distributions have the same kernel and the same toolchain.

Only the same kernel in name. Check out the source package for the kernels that come with your distribution. They will have hundreds of patches that the vendor has applied to the vanilla version - it may say kernel version 2.6.8 for instance, but it will be substantially different to the vanilla 2.6.8 kernel that Linus Torvalds blessed with holy penguin pee.

As for the toolchain, that would be the same one the BSD's use.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[Eivind Eklund]

No. Different distributions have different startup systems, they have different applications included, they have different locations for various files, etc. And they have differently patched kernels.

Different Linux "distributions" are different operating systems. Linuxites have some weird kernel fetish that I, as a kernel hacker and operating systems maintainer, do not get. Sure, different kernels are different kernels and have different pros and cons. However, they express their differences in different handling of load patterns etc, and a fairly narrow API. Other parts of an OS add up to much, much more.

Eivind.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[vadim_t]

Linux kernels are pretty much interchangeable. Distro patches tend to be things like bugfixes that didn't get integrated into the stable tree yet, various little features that aren't necessarily good enough for the main kernel but still wanted in the distribution, things like grsecurity that are unlikely to get into the mainline because they're weird or too specialized.

For instance, patches added by a distribution that I've seen have been things like bluesmoke (provides ECC RAM support), SMART support for SATA disks, and bootsplash (pretty graphical boot screen). Things like that don't really make the kernel very different, and are mostly there because somebody want them now (say, people that run servers).

Then you have distributions like Debian that are obsessed with stability. Rather than using new versions they backport fixes to the version they originally shipped.

I've never seen a Linux distribution that wouldn't boot if you installed the vanilla kernel on it. The Gentoo version works just fine on Debian, etc. I doubt the same holds for the BSDs.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[cyclop]

Don't get upset so easily. I'm a Gentoo diehard too -my home desktop runs it almost from 2 years. I'm accustomed in using tons of Linux distros -and I like Linux for the very fact we have many different distros- but I just wanted to joke on the usual "my-distro-is-better-than-yours" flaming. As for the meaning of "ricers", you can check http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ricer , meaning 2.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[T-Ranger]

Its from the car modding and racing community. Specificly, from the modding of cars that come from countries that dont like wheat.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[DrSkwid]

Have you ever actually run an OpenBSD server?

I do. The applications lag meaning all that whizzy online help is six months ahead of you.

All you have to do is use feature X. and Feature X isn't in the OpenBSD distro yet.

Then there's upgrading to the latest OpenBSD come release day : basically a full re-install.

For me, OpenBSD is a compromise. I know that once I've installed it I can happily leave it alone without a patchfest every few weeks but I will be behind the curve of the buzz. No great problem but still sometime irritating, though not as irritating as when our managed Linux box in the co-lo got owned :)

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bluetooth support, it originated from NetBSD^H^H^H^H^H^HFreeBSD.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[QuantumFTL]

I think it's ridiculous that people complain about how many BSDs there are when there are so many redundant Linux distros out there.

I'm also rather upset about the number of Linux distros, however a decent amount of those are created with corporate funding (if there's an economic case for it, I think it's hard to call it a bad thing to develop). I'm more concerned about volunteer developers "wasting" time trying to help FOSS in a way that, in my estimation at least, is not terribly helpful.

I will say I do sympathize with distros like Ubuntu that decided that Debian would be really awesome if it actually released a stable version with reasonably current software at decent intervals, and many major distros are significantly different, or at least share the same kernel code, such that there is not *too* much overlap.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[LWATCDR]

"I know that once I've installed it I can happily leave it alone without a patchfest every few weeks but I will be behind the curve of the buzz."
OpenBSD tends to be used for a server. What buzz are you talking about. I do not use OpenBSD but for the latest and greatest MySQL, PostGres, Python, PHP, and or Perl don't you just download and compile?
Doesn't most of the buzz come from applications and not from the distro if I can call OpenBSD a distro since there is only a single flavor.
I can understand if you are talking about using a desktop system. Downloading the source to X.org, KDE, or Gnome and compiling them is a real pain. At least for me if I want the very latest and greatest on my server I download the source and build it.
I will admit that I have come to really dislike PHP from building it. It is great when the official package just works but when you have to compile it, well it is enough to make me want to switch to Python.
I tend to use Linux for my servers so I have no idea how different OpenBSD is. BTW for servers I have become really fond of CENTOS as a distro. YUM has worked as well for me as apt-get did.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[chromatic]

Which license applies to the Linux code in this case? I've never heard of such a thing.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Well, look at it as subprojects of a single master project.

Unfortunately, this does not jive with reality.

The BSDs do share a lot of code, but porting it around is a fair bit of work. As long as the different projects have purposes, this is nothing but positive.

FreeBSD has a real purpose: They create a great general-purpose OS for widespread use. OpenBSD has a real purpose: It innovates very quickly and the implementations are very high quality due to code reviews and skilled coders (this is the true root cause of it's well-known security), and it is more true to Open Source ideals than any other major project that I'm aware of. NetBSD may be slightly adrift, as the practical usefulness of being ported so widely is limited. If the project is doomed, maybe it would be better for the developers to move on. I'm sure FreeBSD would love to have people working on it's portability. But before pronouncing NetBSD dead, I'd love to hear the other side of the story.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[FST777]

Agreed. Didn't even think of that.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[pe1chl]

This is great when you have unlimited development resources.
In a world where developers are a scarce resource, it may be better to unify some projects and develop the remaining project at a better pace (even when it requires more thought).

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[DrSkwid]

Downloading non-OpenBSD audited code defeats the idea n'est pas ?

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[demon]

I've never seen a Linux distribution that wouldn't boot if you installed the vanilla kernel on it.

It won't stop it from *booting*, but try booting FC4 with a vanilla kernel and then log in on the console - watch how it DOES NOT WORK. Seriously, try it. They have some PAM module that uses a procfs feature added by one of their kernel packages. It can be disabled, but it's definitely an example of a fairly normal operation that should work fine with a stock kernel, but manages to fail miserably.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[demon]

Please see http://www.funroll-loops.org/ for the full scoop.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[fferret]

Upset? Nah. Just didn't recognize the origin. I can take being flamed for my disty choice, it wouldn't be the first time. I used to work with SCO Unixware and OpenServer. Now that'll getcha flambe'd!

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[fferret]

Ah, I'm used to this from motorcycles, not from cars. I spotted one of those the other day, actually. Why in hell would you put glass-packs on a Hyundai?!?!

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[LWATCDR]

Sort of like using unsigned software and drivers on Windows?
Just kidding. Well wanting the latest and greatest "buzz" violates the whole idea of OpenBSD then.
I just don't see that. The world isn't black and white. A system admin that needs say the latest version of let's say Plone could very well decide that it is worth the risk of installing a version of Python and or a Plone that has not been through the OpenBSD code audit. They would still benefit from all the audited code while have up to date software. I do not see how they would be any less secure than running the same stack on a less secure OS.
I agree that the most secure policy would be to only run audited code on an OpenBSD server but choosing OpenBSD as your OS shouldn't prevent you from choosing current versions of different software. The system admin just needs to judge the risk to benefit ratio. Frankly just about anybody that uses OpenBSD for anything but a trivial webserver is going to run some none audited code. The second you write one line of PHP, perl, or python you are running unaudited code.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[bplipschitz]

In a world with Linux, Solaris, OS X (a BSD, sorta), a zillion types of Windows, QNX, etc... why do we need so many BSDs? I mean, if someone wants to make their own version of an OSS project, that's up to them, but if you want to be relevant, you have to offer something new and relevant. If I'm going to run BSD on a server, I'm going to run something security oriented like OpenBSD so I can spend more time developing my applications.

Because you've got that Mac G4 with OS9 on it sitting around at work gathering dust, and it would make a great database server. FreeBSD's port ain't ready for Prime Time, and who wants the hassle of Linux? NetBSD is the perfect choice. This machine has been serving up BAMP flawlessly for over 120 days straight. . .

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then there's upgrading to the latest OpenBSD come release day : basically a full re-install.

You are not a big fan of the upgrade feature?

BTW, an OpenBSD install, including X and misc config, typically takes me under 5 minutes. If you backup your old /home and configs or don't touch it during the install, you can easily move /home to point to the old /home slice.

Minutes. Even less without X. And it can be done remotely over serial lines.

Hell by the time I get Windows Update to actually finish authorising my machine, etc, etc, etc to get me to a screen where I can choose what I want to update... an OpenBSD install is already copying sets off the CD or network and putting them to disk.

PS, yes, milk does suck. Anyone who says that drinking the milk of another species is "natural", long after we mammals have been weened OFF of milk, needs to be labotomised.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[Sithgunner]

Now this sounds like kids encouraging teachers to do what they need to do.
You seem to like Linux as you try to put NetBSD developers in Linux instead of some BSD, which is never the universal conclusion and you failed to point out what's better at OpenBSD but about security saying 'the like', and it seems that you're just trying to move people out without really trying to understand their feelings.

'ok, your project was cool back in the days, but its poor now, we have this great things called Linux and other BSD, so, lets move on to those ones'.

Just for one time, make yourself feel like a NetBSD developer on your own who has been with it for over a decade. I wonder a sudden cheer from some guy would make you want to simply ditch his decade work and move on.

Re:How many BSDs do we need?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were a developer then you would realise that what you've said is in fact completely and utterly false. There are more Linux kernels than there are BSD kernels. Every distro has one. They all without exception apply a large number of patches to the kernels that they get from kernel.org.

What Linux has that BSD doesn't is good marketting. Linus managed to convince people that there is in fact one Linux when there are actually hundreds. Want MIPS support from Linux? Not from Linus you don't. You download a 20MB context diff and apply it as a patch... Want this want that? It's a patch. Want h/w support? It's a separately maintained kernel module. Etc.

Not that I'm saying that Linux adopted a bad model: it obviously worked. They managed to get all of the market share during a time when both of the BSDs were clearly and obviously superior in every way. But don't repeat the marketting like a droid. Just accept that it's B.S. and you use Linux for other reasons...

Mergers and Acquisition

[delirium of disorder]

OpenBSD was a fork() of netbsd. Is there any chance they could reunite to make a single stronger OS? How difficult would reconciling the politics and the codebase be?

Re:Mergers and Acquisition

[Renegade88]

first, it would be absurdly difficult after 10 years of divergence. Secondly, what would be in it for OpenBSD? I see no benefit for them. Thirdly, ego's caused the original split. There is no way in hell that either side would merge for the same reason. I'd bet both would rather see both projects die before that happens.

Re:Mergers and Acquisition

[multipartmixed]

You can't rejoin fork()s. You're thinking of threads, with the thread attr not set to detach. Not quite the same thing!

Re:Mergers and Acquisition

[jimstapleton]

I thought OpenBSD is the continuation of the original, whereas "Net" and "Free" are the two major forks.

Re:Mergers and Acquisition

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you're being facetious, but once one process has forked into two processes and even after they diverged to perform different tasks, couldn't they communicate (via sockets, files, whatever) until one has enough information about the other to spawn a third process that has the functionality of the two processes combined? This actually appears similar to what would have to happen for two BSDs to get back together.

Re:Mergers and Acquisition

[Nutria]

first, it would be absurdly difficult after 10 years of divergence. Secondly, what would be in it for OpenBSD? I see no benefit for them.

Why can't OpenBSD subsume NetBSD's prime feature: extreme portability?

If the Linux kernel can do it, why not OBSD? With all those code reviews, "cleanness" should enhance it's ability to port to different architectures.

Re:Mergers and Acquisition

[Dan Ost]

No, OpenBSD was definately a fork of NetBSD.

FreeBSD and NetBSD both derive from the same code base (can't remember the name),
but I don't think that one is a fork of the other.

Re:Mergers and Acquisition

[jimstapleton]

ok, I'm not good with history, I just know what's important... FreeBSD makes me happier than any other OS can.

Re:Mergers and Acquisition

[azrider]

OpenBSD was a fork() of netbsd. Is there any chance they could reunite to make a single stronger OS? How difficult would reconciling the politics and the codebase be?

Codebase == fun Politics == priceless

Re:Mergers and Acquisition

[NuclearDog]

BSD Family Tree

Of course, that might just cause more confusion.

ND

Re:Mergers and Acquisition

[archen]

4.3BSD was the origional. NetBSD was the continuation from that. Both FreeBSD and OpenBSD are forks, and DragonFly a fork from FreeBSD 4x. OpenBSD being the most notorious with Theo involved.

As of FreeBSD 5x, the project has taken a very different road than the other BSDs, which is where the DragonFly fork happened. DragonFly however then also decided to take a very different approach to OS archetecture all together. If the NetBSD people are going to find a home similar to their own, then OpenBSD is the easiest route I would think. If they can't put up with Theo, then they're more than smart enough to pick up on the other BSDs as well.

But keep in mind that Open and NetBSD are very different. With years of NetBSD focusing on archetecture agnostic drivers, and OpenBSD focusing on many different security levels, they're very different under the hood.

Re:Mergers and Acquisition

[Just Some Guy]

Why can't OpenBSD subsume NetBSD's prime feature: extreme portability?

OpenBSD is a lot more portable than most people think. That's not its primary focus, but definitely one of their stated goals:

Work towards a very machine independent source tree. Support as many different systems and hardware as feasible.

Re:Mergers and Acquisition

[multipartmixed]

In the general case, no.

In the specific case, whereby the programmer creates sufficient scaffolding to allow this, of course.

But then, it's not a really a join, it's a copy of a merged entity, with a new process id.

Re:Mergers and Acquisition

[jimstapleton]

nice... and that shows that if NetBSD merges into another BSD (please be Free! please be Free!), it won't be an unprecidented action.

Re:Mergers and Acquisition

[Anonymous Coward]

OpenBSD was a fork() of netbsd. Is there any chance they could reunite to make a single stronger OS? How difficult would reconciling the politics and the codebase be?

Wanker. Think and Google and think again before you post. That way you'll avoid wasting everybody's time with the indisputable evidence that you're a lazy, ignorant fuckwit.

Re:Mergers and Acquisition

[Tuzanor]

Precicely. OpenBSD's approach to security is to fix bugs because most security holes are quite plainly software bugs/poor coding. Porting your software on differnet architectures, little/big endians, etc can show some pretty nifty bugs or bad design that could be exploited across platforms. Plus, having good portable code makes it easier to port to new architectures that have expanded security support like W^X.

Re:Mergers and Acquisition

[Anonymous Coward]

Wanker. Think and Google and think again before you post. That way you'll avoid wasting everybody's time with the indisputable evidence that you're a lazy, ignorant fuckwit.

Is that you Theo?

Re:Mergers and Acquisition

[Nimrangul]

Infact, the support for VAX recently helped find some bugs and lead to multiplatform fixes.

Sarcasm is dead.

[Gary W. Longsine]

Mods, get a clue. This was *funny*.

Give me a break.

[ad454]

NetBSD is not dying. It is getting better and better with new features and improvements being added all of the time. In addition to steady developments, Google summers have really boasted NetBSD.

I guess for some, having a lightweight, decent, and stable OS that does what it is suppose to do not enough. Admittedly their are many needed userland applications, epecially commercial applications that won't run on NetBSD. But if that was my primary concern than I would only run Windows XP. And when it comes to userland opensource, nothing beats PKGSRC. Especially when compaired to Linux equilibrants like SuSE yast.

When you ask the average person, all that they care about is the bells and wistle in the window manager and not much else. Think aqua in MacOSX or aero in WinVista.

Alicia.

Re:Give me a break.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a long time NetBSD user, there's only one thing I would give my left nut for: DRI support. Both open source nVidia and Radeon drivers can do GLX, but as of yet the only DRI interfaces were squandered away as patch sets, and never picked up by anyone. I can't believe it. If I was a coder I'd be on it in a second, but this is one thing that NetBSD seriously needs to make it as an i386 workstation. I'd love to have it, as everything else works 100% perfectly on my laptop with NetBSD, but I can't just leave that onboard Radeon unused.

Re:Give me a break.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because you know the state of the project better than a core developer and founder.

Get fucked.

Re:Give me a break.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... because YAST is the premier open source package manager not apt for binaries in debian and tons of distros based on it (I wonder why they are based on it?) and emerge for gentoo/source.

And as was pointed out recently Linux runs on more CPU architectures than NetBSD, and it's bigger in the embedded market. It has a better kernel, more advanced filesystems, better package management, better desktop distros, better server distros. The ONLY argument for a BSD would be OpenBSD's superior security and firewall, but even SELinux is giving them a run for their money there. Thanks for some wireless drivers and porting work NetBSD, thanks for creating OpenBSD, but just run along and die now.

Re:Give me a break.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you send your left nut on over (preferably in a jar of fermaldihyde), I'll get started on it immediately. If you want, we can do a payment plan, and you can send half of your left nut now, and the other half on completion.

Re:Give me a break.

[Ant P.]

By "GLX", do you just mean glxgears doesn't segfault, or do you mean there's an open source nv driver that's actually better than the vesa driver?

Re:Give me a break.

[JoloK]

Mod This Up!!! It's one of the only insightful replies to this non-news posting?
You guys must sit up nights inventing crap to post...

Re:Give me a break.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you really beat apt-get? I don't beleive it really.

Re:Give me a break.

[Anonymous Coward]

lol. selinux and openbsd are apples and oranges.

Leadership

[wysiwia]

It's seldom that a founder of a OSS project acknowledges his mistakes but Charles M. Hannum does it. Just for this simple action I value his reasoning very much.

IMO leadership of a project is very important because leaders always have a vision and the drive to force this vision become true. There's no guaranty that a leader will be successful with his vision but definitely comities always will fail they never have a single vision and never can agree to force a single vision become true. So whenever a project is lead by a comity stagnation is not far off.

Yet leadership does not mean dictatorship as often is done by many OSS project leaders. Dictators will equally bring a project down as do comities. There's unfortunately no clear distinction when a leader becomes a dictator as many times good leaders are just lucky avoiding the path to dictatorship by sheer luck.

O. Wyss

Re:Leadership

[Tragek]

Hopefully this admission of his mistake will lead to something being done about it. He laid out quite clearly a plan of action to reverse the stagnation of NetBSD, and hopefully his steps are taken.

I don't know the history behind the creation of the Foundation as a separate entity from the project, but it is most likely that that will be the sticking point unless the members of the Foundation are perceptive enough to see that their disbanding would be best for the entire project.

Re:Leadership

[wysiwia]

Hopefully this admission of his mistake will lead to something being done about it. He laid out quite clearly a plan of action to reverse the stagnation of NetBSD, and hopefully his steps are taken.

Yet the most important step is the removment of foundation people and I'm rather pessimistic if that will ever happen. Well there are many other promising projects and it's more fun to work for an upstart than a dying project. It's sad but that's the way of life.

O. Wyss

Re:Leadership

[Tragek]

Really, I guess the only hopes is that perhaps the Foundation Members will remove themselves.

respect

[tezbobobo]

I must say, it is an interesting read but I am struck by the humility and honesty of this guy.

Not surprized

[PrayingWolf]

I've been waiting for this to happen ever since I read how Theo De Raadt was treated in there and how he eventually left the group to work on his own branch. I think you can find an archive of his emails with the NetBSD dev team somewhere...

Now the problem is admitted: FTA:

Partly due to lack of people, and partly due to a more corporate mentality, projects were often "locked". One person would say they were working on a project, and everyone else would be told to refer to them. Often these projects stagnated, or never progressed at all. If they did, the motivators were often very slow. As a result, many important projects have moved at a glacial pace, or never materialized at all.

This is basically what drove Theo out (as far as I understand his great ideas were ignored by the boureaucratic system and he felt frustrated) and now the basic reason why NetBSD is dying.

But NetBSD still lives: in its decendants, like OpenBSD. So let us treat NetBSD with the same respect we would give to a dying grandfather :)

Re:Not surprized

[Renegade88]

What I'm surprised about is that you read the email chain but came to the conclusion that Theo's ideas were "ignored". That's not what happened. They desperated wanted his ideas and his code, but they told him he could not COMMIT the code himself, but rather work through an intermediary, one that had no technical skill. It's like telling the former CEO to report to the janitor. You got it half right, but either you didn't read the whole chain, or your memory is failing you.

Re:Not surprized

[PrayingWolf]

True. I WAS trying to bring up precisely the problem of COMMITTING (the quote from the article, hello?). So what I basically meant was that effectively the system ate Theo's work... or at least hindered it. Maybe I wan't entirey correct, but that's what the article seems to imply also.

For anyone intrested, the email chain is here. Everyone can make their own conclusions. And yes, I did read the entire chain, long ago.

Re:Not surprized

[Eivind Eklund]

He could not commit the code himself unless he expressly promised not to be abusive and held that promise. This was, in my opinion, a reasonable reaction to unreasoanble behaviour from Theo, and was followed with more unreasonable behaviour from Theo.

Eivind.

Re:Not surprized

[Renegade88]

The short version is Theo said that he would not hand over 10,000+ changed lines of code UNLESS he could merge them himself. The guy who was assigned Theo's sparc port requested twice that Theo's priviledges be re-instated for this purpose, but the Core ignored the the new head of the Sparc port. Theo actually did agree to their demands of being cordial WITHIN reason. The problem was three fold:

1. They didn't really want him to agree, they wanted him out.
2. If he did agree, it would be without condition. Theo wanted extenuating circumstances to be considered
3. In the original incident, Theo did not verbally abuse some poor random user on the NetBSD mail list. Some guy repeatedly provoked Theo on his private email account. It did not come out of the clear blue and the "victim" was not innocent. He basically got what he deserved. The NetBSD didn't agree though

Re:Not surprized

[Anonymous Coward]

You open source people come off like a bunch of catty school girls sometimes. Get serious.

Re:Not surprized

[Anonymous Coward]

] This is basically what drove Theo out

Actually, as I remember it, it was more like this:

1. Some user sends Theo an email, asking him a question
2. Theo replies "Stop sticking your f*cking cock down my throat!"
3. User forwards email to rest of core group
4. Core group tells Theo (again) to stop being an arse to random users
5. Theo responds to the effect that people whom he doesn't respect don't deserve politeness.
6. Core group decides to remove Theo from Core, and informs him
7. (vague on exact detail here) Theo allegedly tells some third party he's going to wreck the CVS tree. Third party relays this on to the Core group
8. Core group removes Theo's CVS commit privledges to keep him from trashing tree, but tells him he can still commit through a third party (Core wants Theo's code for Sun systems)
9. Long debate, where Theo asks for CVS commit back. His argument is that you can't effectively develop without it (which is a valid argument); Core mostly agrees, but is worried he'll trash the system.
10. Eventually, Theo founds OpenBSD.

Re:Not surprized

[Renegade88]

point 7 is absurd. They were not concerned that he would trash the system. It is CVS, you can't trash it. You just roll it back to before the "trashing".

More or less the timeline is correct except it wasn't some random user. There was a lot a previous history between that particular user and Theo, and the exchange happened on private email. I'm not defending Theo on what he said to the guy, but it's my understanding the "user" (which I believe was a junior contributor) was being a jerk. He would have had to be to get a response like that, right?

Re:Not surprized

[NuclearDog]

Uh, he did promise that he would be professional on the conditions that:
  - There was a clear line drawn on what was considered NetBSD-related e-mail and was subject to this, and what was private/unrelated.
  - All the people who were given CVS access were subject to the same conditions.

The core team agreed and told Theo they would draw up some sort of agreement. They then spent months accomplishing nothing but telling him "We're working on it." before he realized it was never going to happen and got fed up and left.

ND

Re:Not surprized

[NuclearDog]

More like this:

1. Some user gets into a flamewar with Theo, getting personal and then mail-bombs Theo's server.
   
2. Theo responds with some rude comment.
   
3. User forwards e-mail to core group, even though the whole situation was unrelated to the NetBSD project.
   
4. Theo is removed from the core group because they believe he's a bad representative of the NetBSD project. They don't give Theo a chance to defend himself, and the one post he did make to a mailing list defending himself was deleted by one of the core group.
   
5. They revoke his CVS access at the same time, even though he could have kept it and stayed on as the sparc port maintainer even if he was removed from the core group.
   
6. Theo asks for CVS access back. Says he doesn't care about the core group and hates politics anyways. Refuses to work with the new sparc port maintiner to merge over 10'000 lines of diffs including several new files. ("It's like the CEO reporting to the janitor.")
   
7. The sparc port maintiner asks the core group to give Theo CVS access.
   
8. The core group refuses unless he agrees to be a 'professional' in all his e-mail.
   
9. He argues that this is unfair because other committers are not held to any standard, and is not going to agree to have all his e-mail be included, arguing that private messages are private.
   
10. Core argues that private messages can still be related, kind of agreeing but not really to the fact that private e-mail should not reasonably be covered (making sure to remember that the original reason this all started was because of a private e-mail, he mentions that he thinks that they wont agree to this because it would be admitting they made a mistake originally).
    
11. Theo asks that a clear line be drawn so he knows what is considered NetBSD-related e-mail and is covered under the policy and a general outline of expectations are drawn up, and all committers agree to it (not just him).
    
12. Core agrees, says they're working on an agreement.
    
13. Months later, Theo gets fed up and walks out and founds OpenBSD.
    

Or at least that's how I remember it.

ND

Re:Not surprized

[Abcd1234]

If you'd ever worked in a real office, you'd realize this is basically par for the course when it comes to developers.

Re:Not surprized

[rthille]

^developers^humans

WAJM

We're All Just Monkeys

Re:Not surprized

[Braino420]

I think you can find an archive of his emails with the NetBSD dev team somewhere...

Found it

Re:Not surprized

[SillyNickName4me]

but it's my understanding the "user" (which I believe was a junior contributor) was being a jerk. He would have had to be to get a response like that, right?

Hmm, for all I can tell, getting a somewhat impolite response takes no more then asking a question. Getting an actually rude response does require a bit more, but not much.

Don't get me wrong btw, he does a good job and I respect him for it, but being nice just doesn't seem to be on his program usually.

Re:Not surprized

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting & hilarious reading.

The only conclusion is:
If you love girls, stay away from the *BSD "community" :)

How telling.

[StarKruzr]

I love NetSBD

Freudian slip, apparently.

-1, redundant

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, does it mean that no more new releases for my vacuum cleaner?

May the Source be with You..

What goes around comes around

[Renegade88]

I'm a big BSD guy, mainly a FreeBSD user, but I intently follow DragonFlyBSD and OpenBSD. Unless I'm mistaken, this is the same Charles Hannum that was directly responsible for kicking fellow NetBSD founder, Theo de Raadt, out of the core group, removed his CVS priviledges, and made Theo twist in the wind for 7 months until he was forced to leave to found OpenBSD. (reading the log I don't see how Theo lasted 7 weeks, he really made an effort to continue with NetBSD despite all of that). So now the evil cabal takes over and kicks Charles out of the core and removes his commit priviledges. It's sad, and I think Charles' points are spot on, but it's a bitter pill to swallow coming from this messenger. You have to shake your head when you think of what NetBSD could have been had they been able to avoid childish political antics in their "cabal".

Re:What goes around comes around

[macshit]

Charles Hannum is a cool guy (I worked in the same office with him for years), and very, very smart. Theo is also smart, but well-known for being a complete and utter asshole much of the time.

I never followed the theo/netbsd split closely (not being part of netbsd project), but I suspect a great part of the blame for the split lies squarely with Theo...

[I do remember the beginnings of the openbsd project, where the members seemed to have no other goal than to annoy people as much as possible with crap like their idiotic "OLF" format.]

Re:What goes around comes around

[LizardKing]

If you'd read the email log more closely, you'd notice that Charles Hannum one of those who was involved in the removal of de Raadt's commit privileges, but then tried to come up with a workable way for Theo to continue working on the project. The whole story has never come out, as the NetBSD core group kept very quiet about what the motivation for removing de Raadt's commit privileges were. However what is not in doubt is that Theo's attitude on the NetBSD mailing lists was abusive towards anyone who he felt was not as technically competent or as well informed as him. This was annoying fellow developers and alienating potential users. Theo was asked to tone down his attitude, or at least ignore postings that he would otherwise have posted inflammatory replies to. He didn't, and my assumption is that the core group removed the commit privileges to distant the "official" project from Theo's shitty attitude. Theo obviously resented this, but continued to badmouth people until he finally forked NetBSD to create OpenBSD - a sandpit where he could fuck people off to his hearts content.

Now it seems Charles Hannum is pissed at someone, and has decided to belittle the work of many current NetBSD developers by cross posting his flame to the Free, Net and Open mailing lists. My opinion for what it's worth? The NetBSD Foundation appears to be dominated by Wasabi personnel, and as a result the decisions it takes may be in the interests of Wasabi commercial interests rather than Charles Hannums. However, there is good work going on in the NetBSD project, and all Hannum's post will do is make the Linux/anti-BSD zealots shriller.

Re:What goes around comes around

[JanneM]

Unless I'm mistaken, this is the same Charles Hannum that was directly responsible for kicking fellow NetBSD founder, Theo de Raadt, out of the core group, removed his CVS priviledges, and made Theo twist in the wind for 7 months until he was forced to leave to found OpenBSD.

Theo "voice of reason" de Raadt? Imagine that, someone not getting along with him. What are the odds, really?

Re:What goes around comes around

[ajs318]

Someone in Theo's position isn't meant to be liked. In fact, if they are liked, they probably aren't doing their job properly. People like that are missed when they go, though, and their former subordinates muse on how they preferred working for a cunt than working for a wanker.

Re:What goes around comes around

[Renegade88]

I read the email log extremely closely. Charles was in the process of creating a "special" set of rules for Theo, that only Theo had to agree to. While he was being jerked around, five additional people earned commit priviledges, but where not made to agree to these "new" criteria. This set of rules was never completed, it was dragged out intentionally, basically "you have to agree to these rules first, but you can't do that until we write them, and we can't give you a date when we will write them even though it's already been weeks".

I would love to post the link to the email log but it would crash the server it's on.

Even though the developer put in charge of Theo's sparc port wanted Theo to have his commit priviledges restored, and asked for it a couple of times, the core refused. The only "workable" solution that was offered was that Theo could pass his diffs on to the port developer and let him merge them. Basically it was a set of conditions that nobody would agree to. The email chain is quite clear that Charles was instrumental in Theo losing the commit priviledges and never intended to restore them. It is also obvious they were jerking him around until he just quit on his own.

My take on Theo:
I think his "utter asshole" reputation is not accurate. He's said some things he probably wants to have back, and likely hurt some feelings. I also think he was cordial during this 7 month jerk-around session, enduring it FAR longer than most people would, and he said all the right things to earn the commit priviledges back. He was willing to "play ball".

Charles might be a good guy, but he wasn't well like during this time in 1995 and forcing Theo out is a black mark on his record. You can't tell me NetBSD is better off now (dying) without Theo then they would have been with him on their team.

Re:What goes around comes around

[dolmen.fr]

The fork was a good decision as Theo seems to be a good leader for OpenBSD, while NetBSD has none.
And Theo also also has more strict principles than Linus, in particular in the definition of "free". (See the kerneltrap interview).

Re:What goes around comes around

[Dan Ost]

While it may be true that Theo is an asshole, if you investigate the split (someone
summarized it nicely above) you'll see that it was Theo who was abused and provoked,
not the other way around. Theo put way more effort into trying to preserve his
connection to NetBSD than I would have if in a similar situation.

The world would be a better place if there were more competent, motivated
assholes like Theo.

Re:What goes around comes around

[archen]

The flip side is that a project that relies on volunteers may alienate more people which it needs to survive. Hell I wouldn't work for the OpenBSD team. You may say, well your skills are rather limited, who needs you? But the DragonFly team is perfectly happy to say, stay out of stuff that's over your head please, and we'll be more than happy to have people work on code cleanups and documentation. And that could in itself be a springboard to getting more involved with a project and making a better product overall.

Re:What goes around comes around

[vonsneerderhooten]

TINC

Re:What goes around comes around

[Doctor Memory]

five additional people earned commit priviledges, but where not made to agree to these "new" criteria

If you have someone who is an alcoholic, you would require them to agree to stay off the sauce, but you probably wouldn't require it from anyone else. Technical arguments on developer mailing lists are common, but if they get so heated that developers leave or switch projects, then something has to be done.

The only "workable" solution that was offered was that Theo could pass his diffs on to the port developer and let him merge them. Basically it was a set of conditions that nobody would agree to.

You haven't contributed to many OSS projects, have you? That's actually the way most contributions from new developers get made: you pass your diffs to someone who knows the software you're patching, and they review them before committing them. That's to make sure that the person who's sending you a fix for some particular piece of hardware doesn't break support for something else that they can't test. Obviously this wouldn't apply in Theo's case, but it's hardly an uncommon situation.

think his "utter asshole" reputation is not accurate

I don't think I'd add "utter" to that description, but from what he's written (that I've read), he certainly seems like an abrasive personality with a short fuse. However, he is the lead of a successful software project, so he must have something going for him...

Re:What goes around comes around

[Renegade88]

Not bad, wrong on all three counts. count 1: He said he would abide by the cores wishes as long as they were state the difference between NetBSD mail and private mail AND that they applied to everyone. count 2: He was in charge of the sparc port. They ripped those priviledges from him without cause or warning. He said NetBSD was welcome to have 10000 lines of bug fixes IF he could merge them himself because he didn't trust anyone to do it. count 3: Besides contributing to a few OSS projects, I am the architect and project lead of one, used by 1000s downstream. How many OSS projects are you in charge of? Be careful with your arrogance. Abrasive yes - short fuse no.

Re:What goes around comes around

[Anonymous Coward]

I often get "blamed" for Theo being kicked out of NetBSD, but that's fiction. The charge was actually led by cgd. I had severe reservations about it, but I didn't really get a choice.

- mycroft

Re:What goes around comes around

[Anonymous Coward]

Theo is an extremely reasonable person with a very uncompromising dislike for anyone who does not understand him or his work. If he was unreasonable then OpenBSD would not be what it is today, which is to say that it has eclipsed NetBSD, the project from which it forked.

Insinuating that he is unreasonable because he has no problem trampling the emotions of the stupid and the lazy is simply incorrect. Saying that he is unreasonable because he has defined the goals of the OpenBSD project with the clarity of a flawless diamond, and because he doesn't compromise on those goals, is ignorant. Anyone who can't understand these things is of no use to the OpenBSD project.

He has learned that his behaviour keeps away the people that bother him, and as an OpenBSD user I say good on him. It means that I don't have to deal with those people on the mailing lists either.

Google Trends confirms it

[3dWarlord]

NetBSD is dying.

Re:Google Trends confirms it

[grimJester]

Does this mean Netcraft is dead? And NetBSD, ironically, outlasted it.

Re:Google Trends confirms it

[Ant P.]

Here's a better graph

The real story here...

[Anonymous Coward]

... is that there are far fewer novel toaster designs being produced every year. It is a Well Known Fact that NetBSD has put forth millions of man-hours into porting their OS to every new toaster design released by manufacturers across the globe. With the recent sharp decline in toaster research, development, and production it was only inevitable that NetBSD development should come to a standstill. Modern convection ovens run Linux, and it's just not the same. What does a penguin know about heat anyway?

Interesting read

[porkThreeWays]

It is a pretty interesting read. I can give you my experience with NetBSD over the past couple of years...

Outside of my regular job we were developing an embedded system. The first thing I thought of was NetBSD. Downloaded it, tested it, critiqued it, and couldn't find enough benefit to use it. The big gotcha was there was no filesystem at the time for running on flash devices. Well, almost every embedded project is going to run on a flash device. Mind you this was a couple of years ago, but according to the post not much has changed. There were a couple of other small gotchas, but in comparing it to Linux, there just wasn't enough reason to use NetBSD.

And therein lies much of the problem. I don't think NetBSD is bad. It's not. However, a lot more people are using Linux for advanced embedded devices than NetBSD and are solving real world problems so you don't have to. NetBSD may run on a plethora of hardware pretty well. But 90% of the embedded world really needs it to run on is i386, arm, and mips. So there is really good linux support for those arches because so many people are developing systems with the linux/uclibc/arm combo. It's the new lamp. NetBSD may have the shock factor of running on things like toasters, but Linux is running on real world things like my phone.

On top of that, the term "embedded" is becoming looser and looser. There was a time when "embedded" meant a 12mhz processor and everything was in assembly and C. Today, I can get a 400mhz gumstix and do all my development in python. I would consider it embedded by today's standards, but in reality that was a normal desktop development machine 5 years ago.

Again, NetBSD isn't bad. If I had to really run something on a 12mhz CPU I doubt I'd be able to use linux/uclibc/arm and NetBSD might be my answer. However, in a world where embedded hardware is the desktop hardware of 5 years ago, there just isn't any benefit to trying to use the same embedded tools of 5 years ago.

Re:Interesting read

[Anonymous Coward]

PowerPC also has good embedded chips with excellent low power draw. I know we use them where I work.

Re:Interesting read

[kernelpanicked]

I'm still shaking my head and trying to figure out what Charles, as well as you, are going on about in regards to flash file systems. Hate to break this to you but ffs works just fine on flash, as I'm posting this from a NEC Mobilepro running NetBSD 2.0.1 and installed entirely on a 1GB CF card.

Re:Interesting read

[r00t]

"If I had to really run something on a 12mhz CPU I doubt I'd be able to use linux/uclibc/arm and NetBSD might be my answer."

No, NetBSD requires an MMU. Linux doesn't need one. If you want to go where Linux can't go, you need eCos.

A Call to Arms

[yukonbob]

I've personally been using NetBSD since the 1.6 days. I've occasionally tried out a Linux (indeed, run a Debian server, and handle Linux in various capacities for work), and FreeBSD (installed during 5.x days... admittedly not a bright spot in their history)... but always come back to Net. For me, it's the right amount of "grumpy" attitude about "correctness", but still useable... it's got an excellent array of third party apps, in an excellent package management system, and performs well. What's not to like? There are some things that need to be hammered out, or attacked outright (accelerated gfx, anyone?), but I still don't trade it for anything else.

For my part, I submit bug reports for issues, and occasionally hack on infrastructure and documentation, as well as advocate and assist in #netbsd (irc.freenode.net). I need to improve on the "hacking" aspect, insofar as finishing my jobs and getting work out there, but it's a start. And it's not that difficult. I encourage anybody who uses it to do the same, and those that don't currently use it, give it a try. It's solid, capable, and speedy. It's not perfect, but with people contributing, it'll get even better. I won't be able to personally get a journalling filesystem in it (for example), but with support and the right pressure, we'll hopefully get what we need.

I believe it was the King addressing Alice who said to her (regarding her retelling of events): Start at the beginning, continue to the end, then stop.
This applies to our participation with NetBSD, or any FOSS project. In the case of NetBSD (or Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD), nobody will be thinking of the "end", and hopes that their favourite OS will just continue... the key is "start at the beginning", and the key part of that is start.

-yb

Homepage not correct

[RicRoc]

Hi Thomas,

Your homepage is not correct, it should be http://www.diku.dk/hjemmesider/studerende/zensonic / :-)

Re:Homepage not correct

[zensonic]

Hey takker!

Thomas

Stable?

[thule]

Note that I've only used FreeBSD and OpenBSD. I've never saw the need to ever install NetBSD.

According to the post, NetBSD's threading is unstable. How can it be stable for modern threaded applications? It would seem that NetBSD would be a lousy choice for hosting a Java based web application. Web apps are a pretty big market.

As far as embeded goes. Linux seems to scale down pretty good these days. Motorola is shipping quite a few phones with Linux on it these days. I recently worked on a 12-port layer 3 switch from Netgear. What OS did it run? Linux.

It would seem to me that the best place to go to run BSD is Open, Free, or DragonFly.

Re:Stable?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It would seem that NetBSD would be a lousy choice for hosting a Java based web application."

s/Java based //
s/NetBSD/Java/

;-)

Re:Stable?

[Anonymous Coward]

> According to the post, NetBSD's threading is unstable. How can it be stable for modern threaded applications?

Everything I tried (including firefox and other really big applications)
works just fine with NetBSD's default configuration.
The problem happens only if $PTHREAD_CONCURRENCY > 1.
So, NetBSD's pthread is not worse than OpenBSD's which
only can use 1 CPU.

Re:Stable?

[quantum bit]

CGI 4 EVER

NetBSD

[bartuelo]

It is a sorrow, personally I like NetBSD much, I hope that it should return soon

Re:NetBSD

[kamochan]

Friends and myself have moved most of our FreeBSD boxes to NetBSD. As FreeBSD has grown bulky and fat (like many linux distros), NetBSD was there to fall back on. NetBSD feels and acts like UNIX in a world where everyone wants to act like Windows.

I completely second this. I used to be a linux user until the late nineties, when I actually had to maintain a bunch of real-world servers, with some security considerations -- i.e. I needed to know what code our servers were actually running. What a horrible mess the Slackware installations suddenly were.

At that point I migrated our company to FreeBSD 4. Lately, due to the problems with FBSD 4 getting obsolete hardware-support-wise, and FBSD 5 not looking very promising, we've been steadily migrating to NetBSD 2 and then 3. Your summary is very apt for what I also have learned during this migration.

What I have been toying with in my head is to take the Linux kernel, mix-and-match a BSD-style quality-controlled "base distribution" from GNU tools and BSD userland, using the neat and compact rc.d system (who, ever, have you actually known to use runlevels other than 0, 1, 3 and 6?), fix the ages-old (smallish but annoying) linux brokenness (like ifconfig not having the -u flag, or not showing link status, or all kernel/driver boot-up messages being incoherent), and put pkgsrc on top. This approach would, in effect, provide us the best of both worlds...

The NetBSD kernel is an excellent study piece, being well made and well documented, but the Linux kernel is simply much more relevant. The NetBSD userland is superior to the pseudo-random GNU mess (where everyone's gotten their toy flags in and their autoconf get-up requires six dozen dependency tools to build), and doesn't suffer from the irrelevance factor, but if you've got a Linux kernel, you've got to take the evil of at least glibc to obtain a reasonable level of binary compatibility for JDK and the like... also using an all-gnu dev tool chain like in Linuxen and OSX would make sense.

Somehow, it doesn't sound insane to me to consider NetBSD as a Minix killer for the academic world, and a LinBSD distro for us who want a "distro" with the manageability and reviewability of traditional BSD, and the kernel features of modern Linux. Heck, this might even drive some competent *BSD developers to start driving a Linux kernel consistency-clean-up project, which IMHO it rather needs.

What's sad is, that I probably wouldn't be considering this if there had been a fairly timely and deserving successor to FreeBSD 4. I *like* the cleanliness, compactness, attention to detail, and predictability of BSD. But I also need it to run on the hardware I have, with reasonably modern features like working threads on multicore CPUs, and have a reasonable expectancy of a working roadmap for the next 5 years... *sigh*

[Note: some comments above intentionally exaggerated. But not by much.]

Re:NetBSD

[toadlife]

Lately, due to the problems with FBSD 4 getting obsolete hardware-support-wise, and FBSD 5 not looking very promising, we've been steadily migrating to NetBSD 2 and then 3. Your summary is very apt for what I also have learned during this migration.

I realize many FreeBSD users were turned off by FreeBSD 5.x, but I would suggest having a look at FreeBSD 6.x, if you haven't. In my experience so far, the SMP support is much better now, and the new ULE scheduler is usable now. And of course, being a newer release, newer hardware support is there.

Freudian Slip??!?

[sh0dan]

To: None <netbsd-users@netbsd.org>

:)

Cylons?

[antdude]

Cylons? [grin]

Re:this NETBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

does it run linux?

Of course

BSD vs GPL

[mlwmohawk]

IMHO the reason why NetBSD is failing is the whole BSD vs GPL debate. BSD guys, don't bother flaming because it doesn't matter.

There is no absolute freedom, that is called anarchy. There must be rules in place to protect freedom for everyone. In creating rules, one has to accept reasonable limits of specific freedoms to balance and maintain everyones freedom. The GPL limits your specific freedom, this is true, while it protects your overall freedom in limiting what others can do with your handy work.

As is evident in the BSD line of systems, BIG corporations are taking your code, making good money, and giving back close to nothing. OpenBSD is dying even though they maintain ssh. NetBSD is dying even though it used to be very popular with the enbedded crowd. FreeBSD will die even though Apple used it as a base.

Linux survives because these entities can't take and forget to give back. Linux is free for all to use both as in beer and freedom. Some distributions may not be, and IMHO this is wrong, but exampled by CentOS, those still have enforced freedom. Your freedom to access GPL code modified by RedHat is protected by the GPL. Make no mistake, if Redhat were BSD, there would be no CentOS.

So every time a *BSD project dies, it is one more nail in the coffin of the BSD side of the GPL/BSD debate.

Re:BSD vs GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

Were OpenSSH GPL'd instead of BSD'd, OpenBSD would still be in financial trouble. In the embedded world, NetBSDs biggest supporter is Wasabi Systems, who've donated tons of code back to the project. Apple has donated plenty of code back to FreeBSD.

Linux survives because it is anarchy, not the the BSD world. The Linux kernel takes whatever is there for the taking. They disregard correctness and completeness in order to have something that works. The BSD world, on the other hand, design then implement. This takes longer and is seen by those who've never maintained something as 'dying'.

You're ignoring reality in order to support your argument. Go troll somewhere else.

Re:BSD vs GPL

[mlwmohawk]

I am not a BSD guy...but that is just stupid.

While I am impressed by your talent in making a concise statement of opinion, an intelligent person would expect a reasoned explanation or argument about why you came to and hold this opinion, otherise, one might just as well assume is is you that is stupid and that you have no reason, and can thus be ignored.

Re:BSD vs GPL

[mlwmohawk]

Bullshit.

At least we can see the grade level of argument that follows

Were OpenSSH GPL'd instead of BSD'd, OpenBSD would still be in financial trouble. In the embedded world, NetBSDs biggest supporter is Wasabi Systems, who've donated tons of code back to the project. Apple has donated plenty of code back to FreeBSD.

It is hard to say if OpenSSH were GPL instead of BSD, they would still be in financial trouble. There would certainly, however, be less duplicated effort in keeping OpenSSH up to date with the commercial versions

Apple may have "donated plenty" but you can't download the code, remove trademarks, and release your own OS/JOE now can you? Take a good look at CentOS and what this represents in terms of real freedom and compare it to the BSD world.

The BSD folk are so used to getting almost nothing, that "almost nothing" looks like "plenty."

Linux survives because it is anarchy, not the the BSD world. The Linux kernel takes whatever is there for the taking. They disregard correctness and completeness in order to have something that works. The BSD world, on the other hand, design then implement. This takes longer and is seen by those who've never maintained something as 'dying'.

Where to start? Not only is there incorrectness in this paragraph, but actual FUD.

"Linux survives because it is anarchy" Please explain this to me as the Linux kernel is well managed, so this is false.

"kernel takes whatever is there for the taking" what does this mean? There is a code submission process and not all patches and submissions get accepted, so this is false.

"They disregard correctness and completeness in order to have something that works" This is my personal favorite, umm, isn't something that "works" by definition "correct." Or are you saying that *BSD code has no bugs? Or that nothing in *BSD is incomplete? or that nothing in *BSD is suboptimal?(Threading anyone?)

"The BSD world, on the other hand, design then implement." So, here is the biggest piece of FUD, you are insinuating that the Linux crowd does not "design" features? You are ranting and participating in worst sort of argument. You are using hyperbole and FUD to impugn Linux in support of BSD

You're ignoring reality in order to support your argument. Go troll somewhere else.

It was not a troll. It was an observation, and I think it is a SERIOUS issue with the BSDs. If you want to have a serious debate about it that is fine, but FUD is not debate

Re:BSD vs GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

I probably shouldn't feed a troll, but anyway...

As is evident in the BSD line of systems, BIG corporations are taking your code, making good money, and giving back close to nothing.

Do corporations use BSD code? Of course.
Do they make modifications do it? Some do, most don't.
Are they making money off BSD code? Yes.
How is any of this bad?

OpenBSD is dying even though they maintain ssh.

OpenBSD isn't dying -- nice FUD.

NetBSD is dying even though it used to be very popular with the enbedded crowd.

NetBSD isn't dying -- more FUD.

FreeBSD will die even though Apple used it as a base.

'FreeBSD will die because of Apple'? Do you have anything to back that up?

Linux survives because these entities can't take and forget to give back.

Google has made scores of modifications to Linux. They haven't given back.

Make no mistake, if Redhat were BSD, there would be no CentOS.

I would love for you to explain how a BSD license would have prevent a fork. (Note: I know little about CentOS)

So every time a *BSD project dies, it is one more nail in the coffin of the BSD side of the GPL/BSD debate.

There have been four major BSD projects: FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and BSD/OS. The three BSD-licensed projects remain; a commercial variant has died. There have been countless Linux distributions, many of which have failed. By your logic, the lid on the GPL coffin is shut tight.

Re:BSD vs GPL

[DaPoulpe]

There is no absolute freedom, that is called anarchy. There must be rules in place to protect freedom for everyone.

No actually Anarchy doesn't mean no rules, it means a stateless society of free people.
You basically have/need rules everywhere unless you go back to the jungle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

Re:BSD vs GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Many corperations are into custom code. Just so you know I can take the Linux kernel, and all GPL code and do whatever the fuck I want with it as long as I don't distribute a product with it. I can make custom controlers for my business, custom servers, whatever I want. I think you overestimate how much code is given back because companies are compelled to do so - and some still steal GPL code outright anyway.

If you make changes then don't submit them back, you need to keep updating such patches on your own time with each core code update. If development goes in a different direction you may be screwed all together. Anyone taking the time to custize code GPL or BSD knows that, so pretty much any code that is actually going to help the system WILL be submitted back if it is open source, reguardless of its licence. If they don't, then it's more work for them.

The BSDs are an entire operating system. 95% of what needs to happen on a BSD (or any system really) is running on top of the OS, not IN the OS itself. In such cases the licence is irrelevant.

Re:BSD vs GPL

[Overly Critical Guy]

There is no absolute freedom, that is called anarchy.

No, absolute freedom is the free range of choice to do what you want. That includes anarchy, or it might be something else. It's whatever you choose. The GPL limits that range of choice and is therefore inherently less free than the BSD license. People like Stallman really should stop trying to equate "freedom" with the GPL, because the GPL isn't preserving freedom other than the right to obtain source code. The BSD license gives you source code as well as the ability to do absolutely whatever you want with it. That's freedom.

In creating rules, one has to accept reasonable limits of specific freedoms to balance and maintain everyones freedom. The GPL limits your specific freedom, this is true, while it protects your overall freedom in limiting what others can do with your handy work.

"Limiting what others can do" with my handy work is the opposite of freedom. True freedom is letting the code out into the world as totally free contribution to public knowledge and culture that anyone in society can use and benefit from, be it a homebrew hacker or a corporation.

As is evident in the BSD line of systems, BIG corporations are taking your code, making good money, and giving back close to nothing.

Lots of Linux corporations do the same thing.

Linux survives because these entities can't take and forget to give back.

Maybe you missed it, but BSD is surviving just fine as well. Apple is the biggest UNIX vendor and relies on FreeBSD. Linux survives not because of the reason you state but because it managed to gain a foothold during the BSD lawsuit crisis, giving it momentum. There's nothing about the GPL that accelerates development over the BSD license. In either case, you can access the same source code repositories. But unlike the GPL, the BSD license doesn't control your actions and restrict your freedom once you have that source code.

So every time a *BSD project dies, it is one more nail in the coffin of the BSD side of the GPL/BSD debate.

Or fodder for anti-BSD trolls such as yourself. NetBSD is dying due to leadership issues, not the BSD license.

Re:BSD vs GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux survives not because of the reason you state but because it managed to gain a foothold during the BSD lawsuit crisis, giving it momentum.

You can say whatever you like - but the server vendor you chose uses linux. (presumably you chose them because of their superior price & service?).

"Limiting what others can do" with my handy work is the opposite of freedom.

Only partially correct.

People like the BSD guys, who give without strings are the true believers in freedom.
People like the GNU guys, who give & stipulate you must give back are pragmatic believers in freedom.
People like the Jobs/Gates, who don't give at all are.... believers in nothing.

Re:BSD vs GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

People like the Jobs/Gates, who don't give at all are.... believers in nothing.

No. Jobs & Gates believe in freedom just as much as any of us. Unlike some of us, they know that freedom means freedom! That includes being able to make money.

Re:BSD vs GPL

[SillyNickName4me]

It is hard to say if OpenSSH were GPL instead of BSD, they would still be in financial trouble. There would certainly, however, be less duplicated effort in keeping OpenSSH up to date with the commercial versions

That commercial version was there first actually, so GPLinng it would not have mattered. If the original codebase had been GPLed however, we might not even have had openssh as it is.

Apple may have "donated plenty" but you can't download the code, remove trademarks, and release your own OS/JOE now can you? Take a good look at CentOS and what this represents in terms of real freedom and compare it to the BSD world.

The BSD folk are so used to getting almost nothing, that "almost nothing" looks like "plenty."

You are confusing Apple's open-sourcing of parts of its own OS with Apple contributing code to FreeBSD. Both happen.

I can definitely take FreeBSD and roll my own OS based on it, including the code that Apple donated.

You are also mistaken about how often this happens, being somewhat blinded obviously by the fact that there are also quite a few cases where it doesn't happen. No it is not a requirement indeed.

FreeBSD includes a slightly obscure thing called Netgraph. Take a look at it when you have time, and also look at where it comes from.

FreeBSD also includes some nice feature called jail, take a look at where it comes from.

Why would companies do this even when they do not have a legal requirement to do so? Very simple, it is cheaper for them that way.

Re:BSD vs GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux survives because these entities can't take and forget to give back.

How very incredibly uninsightful. The GPL does not bring *money* back into Linux and it does not resolve political problems, it can only bring back code of a very varying degree of quality. It is usually money or politics which kills a project. The "taking" from BSD's does not actually remove anything from them. A project can only ultimately die if there are not enough quality people left who care about it. That has NOTHING to do with BSD versus GPL. NOTHING

Again, the GPL does NOT eliminate the threats which can kill a project. Neither does the BSD licence.

OpenBSD, is most certainly not dying. I for one, as long as I live, will not allow that and there are plenty of other people just like me. I can't say the same for FreeBSD or NetBSD, since they seem to lack definite strong leaders, which promotes political problems which can lead to a project being temporarily harmed at the least. OpenBSD has a strong, dedicated, smart, forward thinking leader and many very talented developers who could also be called many of those things. Saying that OpenBSD is dying and being serious about it, is just downright uninformed or stupid.

BTW, 9 years ago a friend of mine tried to convince me that Linux and the BSD's would soon fade out as fads. Your ill thought out, ill informed opinion can join his along with all the other worthless visionaries opinions-of-the-hour.

Make no mistake, if Redhat were BSD, there would be no CentOS.

Make no mistake, if FreeBSD were BSD, there would be no OS X.

Re:BSD vs GPL

[tepples]

isn't something that "works" by definition "correct."

Except "works" as defined by a test suite (or, worse, casual use) isn't everything. How do you know that your code really works in situations that your test suite may not have foreseen? For example, something that relies on the little-endianness and unaligned load/store of x86 may "work" on Linus's machine even if it breaks on all the other platforms. This would be less of a problem except that Linus has historically tended to reject patches from even the recognized maintainers of ports of Linux to other platforms because they don't fix anything on Linus's pet architecture (that is, x86).

Solution?

[Zapman]

He hints around what I propose a lot[1], but he doesn't go there for some reason. His solution is to reform the system that has been broken for a long time, with what sounds like 'entrenched' problems.

My suggestion is to fork. You mention several good people and code. Open a new project (BSDPortable?) tempt the good people over there, and move on.

In my experience, the 'bad elements' very rarely remove themselves...

[1] Dragonfly BSD, Xorg, etc

Re:Solution?

[obirt]

And divide resources, users, time, and effort further?

The Only Constant is

[cyberbian]

Change. I'm an avid BSDer myself, primarily Free (despite the claimed IO failings) I find that BSD in all of its incarnations delivers stability, security and extensibility. I also use OS X, on the Macs around this place... I've completely dropped Windows, except where forced to use it through work. This is all evidence that the times are consistently changing.
I used to really like my C64, and my PET before that... I learned Pascal on an Apple II and was kicked out of 'Informatics' as it was then known for accessing the school board network. In my defense, it was the earliest example of the weakness of passwords as a security method (school:school) and I made up for my transgression by becoming a peer tutor helping many students pass computer science.
While I fondly remember my father delivering punch cards to the board office for processing the FORTRAN programs his pupils pencilled over, those days are gone too. I guess the lesson to be learned is that there is only change, those who can adapt, do, those who can't are relegated to the 'used to wases' and we can wax lyrically on the golden days of this or that, but the truth is that's left for old codgers and COBOL programmers.
To be on the cutting edge requires relevance, that means that a project (platform, etc.) needs to address the needs of today NOW, and have a plan for adapting to the constant change we all face. Sadly, it seems that the NetBSD project is either in need of a shake up, an injection of new blood, or a quiet and graceful departure from the mainstream consciousness. By his own admission, one of the founders of NetBSD is claiming the decay of his beloved baby. This isn't something to cry about, in New Orleans (deity bless its cotton socks) they have a great celebration on a passing. Perhaps a fork in the road is ahead for NetBSD, perhaps Charles can find it within himself to fork it himself.
Hell, we used to think vacuum tubes were the bomb! Imagine the blackouts we'd have if we still did?

Re:The Only Constant is

[Alioth]

NetBSD already forked on this issue - it did this 10 years ago. The guy who forked it is called Theo deRaadt, and he started the OpenBSD project, a fork of NetBSD. You might have heard of it :-)

Small form factor and an honest to god *nix

[Vulcann]

I have been a user of NetBSD since version 1.6 upto version 3.0. I have always used NetBSD over Linux since my student days for reasons which I'm sure will apply equally to a lot of people even today. 1) The complexity of NetBSD is just enough to handle for a person attempting to get into OS kernel development. Its a lot simpler than deciphering a current Linux kernel. 2) It runs surprisingly quick even with very little resources but is yet fully functional for most student projects. I used to run NetBSD off 16 MB of RAM inside a VMWare virtual machine running on a dog slow 333 MHz Celeron. Tried to run Linux inside a similar setup but it was just too bulky. 3) It has all the tools any CS guy would need for course projects. Everything from gdb to gcc to perl to bash. If you're one of those GUI folks theres a decently functional X running off it. All of this while being prudent with resources. 4) Being BSD, its more Unix than Linux is. Granted this may not be a huge plus but with folks who want to develop software targetting other BSDs its prolly a better place to start off on. 5) Blazing fast protocol stack. Its a great case study for a Networking/Protocol course Considering students stand to benefit so much from such a system its a wonder why more students dont work on this system and eventually develop for it. Perhaps its the Linux hype generated the world over that precludes other choices for young college folks.

Take Me to Your Leader

[nebulous_afterthough]

From TFA:

Unfortunately, we made some mistakes here. As we've seen over the years, one of the great successes of Linux was that it had a strong leader, who set goals and directions, and was able to get people to do what he wanted -- or find someone else to do it.

From the OpenBSD website:

Our efforts emphasize portability, standardization, correctness, proactive security and integrated cryptography.

OpenBSD is driven by Theo the "benevolent dictator". Glad to see "correctness" applied to leadership style and at least one NetBSD error fixed.

This is somewhat sad though, as I still see commit messages in OpenBSD referencing NetBSD occasionally.

(Posted via Firefox running on OpenBSD 4.0 Beta)

Re:About fucking time

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me drooling fanboy, but shouldn't you be blowing centOS these days? So many of your kind are.

oh noes!!1

[teh_chrizzle]

does that mean there will be no more articles about how some freak ported netBSD to a new game console or waffle iron? can't they at least wait until the PS3 is out?

/sarcasm

most of my unix learning i got courtesty of BSD on public access systems like hobbiton.org and sdf.lonestar.org. hobbiton was openBSD, but is no longer public access, and SDF is netBSD on dec alphas (i believe). it was a great way to learn about unix without installing linux.

BTW Linux too

[ratta]

it is still a bit of a niche OS, at least compared with Microsoft. And when i read that 99.99% of desktop computers uses Microsoft Window i don't think that Linux is dying. I just use it on my desktop every day, and it is enough :)

Re:BTW Linux too

[jimstapleton]

And when i read that 99.99% of desktop computers uses Microsoft Window i don't think that Linux is dying. I just use it on my desktop every day, and it is enough :)

When I read that 99.99% of desktop computers use Windows, I think that someone hasn't done their research... I believe it is high, but /that/ high?

Re:BTW Linux too

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think it's hard to grap that much, since even apple has something like 2-3% market share

Missing point

[Per Abrahamsen]

I didn't see his argument for why NetBSD should be saved. Certainly, OpenBSD and Linux both provide "strong leadership", which is his major complaint.

Wouldn't it be more useful simply to ask NetBSD developers to start contributing to OpenBSD, Linux or DragonflyBSD, adding whatever they feel worth rescuing from NetBSD?

Re:Missing point

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be more useful simply to ask NetBSD developers to start contributing to OpenBSD, Linux or DragonflyBSD, adding whatever they feel worth rescuing from NetBSD?

Rescuing? Is the one and only copy of the NetBSD source code on fire? Is it sinking?

It's BSD! Anyone can take what they want at any time.

ToasterBSD

[cdcarter]

Now what is my Toaster-PC going to run?

Decoupling kernel and distribution

[Per Abrahamsen]

I think it's ridiculous that people complain about how many BSDs there are when there are so many redundant Linux distros out there.

Maybe the largest procedural advatage Linux have over the BSD's is the decoupling of the kernel development from the os-distribution. The skills needed for the two are very different. Like all decoupling, it allows people to experiment with one, without affecting the other. And since the end-user product is the os-distribution, it allowed commercial interests to have their own unique distributions, without permanent forking of the kernel.

The bad luck of the free BSD's is that they all originate from the 386BSD distribution, which was bundled in the old Unix tradition.

Re:Decoupling kernel and distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see this as an advantage. I like FreeBSD coupling as in

# cd /usr/src
# make buildworld
# make installworld
# make buildkernel
# make installkernel ...
# cd /usr/ports/where/ever
# make install & make clean

Clear, concise, and it doesn't seem to change too much from release to release.

Re:Decoupling kernel and distribution

[r00t]

Debian and Gentoo are both more clear and concise than that. Neither has changed in many years AFAIK.

Why I don't use NetBSD

[Danathar]

It's not because I have anything against it, it's just that everytime I think about NetBSD I can't come up with a REASON for running it (other than for pure nerd exploration purposes).

If I want to be secure I run OpenBSD, if I like the "UNIX" model over the "LINUX" way of grokking things I'll run FreeBSD. In the past NetBSD's mantra was portability. I don't think that's a big enough selling point.

Differentiation is what sells (it seems). NetBSD needs to be something the others are not doing.

I hope it survives and hope that the people involved are mature enough not to let their EGO's get in the way.

In some ways they have a GOLDEN opportunity. NetBSD is far enough along that they don't have to start from scratch, but small enough (organization wise) to allow them to possibly do something that LINUX and FreeBSD are too big to handle.

I don't know what that is..but I hope it's something cool!

Re:Why I don't use NetBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Tru dat, yo.

Now I'm sort of having the same feelings about FreeBSD lately too. I used it back in the FreeBSD 4.x days, but now I've mostly moved onto Solaris x86 since it's become free to use and abuse. But even then, FreeBSD at least has two things going for it that Solaris x86 currently lacks: 1)Ports 2)much better hardware support

OpenBSD still fills the minimal OS and security niche great... but as OpenSolaris and newer versions of Solaris x86 get more hardware support and more 3rd party software support, I'll have fewer reasons to use FreeBSD in the future.

The same thing happens to businesses (think K-Mart and Montgomery Ward)... You've got to stand apart from your competitors and give your customers/users some reason to need you.

Frankly speaking...

[Ayanami Rei]

...the disenchanted NetBSD developers should jump ship to OpenBSD and bring their toys with them.

Anarchy cannot exist...

[Anonymous Coward]

In an Anarchy there will always be a strongest man(woman?), or even a man/woman with the biggest gang/army. thsi will automatically become the next king/queen/...

So any Anarchy will instantly be in the transition to a monarchy.....

Too bad anarchists

*BSDers seem to miss the point

[ewe2]

What Hannum obviously longs for is a looser central organization, the current one is crippling NetBSD development. Some of the responses to his post indicate a slavish servitude to the structure instead of finding a structure that serves the project. Here's a clue, guys: Linux-bashing may be cathartic, but it merely frames your irrelevance. In Linux, code gets done, not pretty. Stop using Linux to excuse your own faults, it's lame.

Quake 3 problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't figure how to run Q3 on NetBSD.
Now with this letter showing up, things will get even worse.
Any help here?

Whoever modded parent 'flamebait' is full of it

[Lost Found]

He's absolutely right, and a mod of 'Flamebait' isn't appropriate just because you disagree. The GPL is one of the most important aspects of the success of the Linux revolution.

Re:Whoever modded parent 'flamebait' is full of it

[mlwmohawk]

The irony is that BSD people are militantly opposed to reason. The ship is sinking and they are debating the color it should be and which part of the ship is more important.

The original article shows that they guy is starting to realize that something is wrong, but he is so steeped in the BSD environment that he can't see it for what it is. A fish can't tell its wet.

Its a shame, BSD is awesome, in its time it was head and shoulders above everything.

What I'd love to see is a UnifiedBSD project that takes NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc. and creates one cutting edge BSD project to keep Linux in check. They'd probably need to make it GPL.

Re:Whoever modded parent 'flamebait' is full of it

[Abcd1234]

The GPL is one of the most important aspects of the success of the Linux revolution.

If you think the GPL is the *reason* Linux, the kernel, is successful, you're an idiot. The furthering of the GPL is an interesting *consequence* of Linux's success, but it is most certainly not the cause.

Linux was successful because it provided a reasonable kernel with decent hardware support upon which the GNU toolchain could be used, and because it attracted developers, since it was a new interesting project headed by a guy with a strong personality and a willingness to accept help from outside. The license had very little to do with it.

Honestly, if you can provide one tiny bit of evidence that the BSD license has actively hindered xBSD kernel development, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, this is all just your usual GPL-fanaticism.

Re:Whoever modded parent 'flamebait' is full of it

[Lost Found]

Well, I can't ask Oracle, IBM, SGI, Novell, Red Hat, Sony, Phillips, HP, Sun Microsystems, Intel and AMD why they choose to contribute code to Linux over BSD because I don't know who to ask. But as the example of Apple adopting BSD clearly shows, they are free at their whims to make it proprietary again. (The fact that Apple has apparently reversed that and is once again 'opening' XNU is irrelevant to the fact that they aptly demonstrated how bad BSD licensing really is).

Actually, Bob Young from Red Hat mentioned that one reason they chose to make Red Hat Linux instead of Red Hat BSD was because they knew the GPL would keep Microsoft from running them over.

The GPL enforces a cooperative environment while giving users complete freedom over how they personally use the software. The BSD license does not. Businesses abuse the 'freedom' of the BSD license. We've seen it time and time again.

Re:Whoever modded parent 'flamebait' is full of it

[toadlife]

You are misinformed. The success of Linux has a lot more to do with the BSD camp's missteps in the early days than anything else.

In the early days when Linux and *BSD were both relatively obscure nothings in the grand scheme of things, BSD was simply less accessible than Linux. BSD devs balked a bit at supporting "low-end" hardware, like cheap IDE controllers, and the sources were not quite as accessible.

Linux on the other hand was available for download everywhere. Linux devs focused much more on supporting cheap commodity hardware (remember, the initial goal of Linux was to be a DESKTOP operating system). Thus Linux was easier to get a hold of, use, and hack on.

There was also the AT&T lawsuit fiasco, which held the BSD sources hostage until 1994 when a settlement was reached. This drove *many* developers over to Linux, despite the fact that linux was an absolute peice of shit compared to BSD during that time. Another non-license-based factor was simple marketing. Yes, that's right...marketing. Linux was advocated by its developers and users from day one, while the FreeBSD Advocacy project was just started a few years ago.

Unfortunately, modern day GPL evangelists are rewriting history in regards to the roots of Linux's success. What's sad is these people probably don't even realize that they are rewriting history. These are the same retards who think every successful open source projects' source is licensed under the GPL. Ask your average GPL fanatic what license Apache, or Firefox, or Perl, or bind, or XFree/Org is licensed under and most of them will say, "The GPL of course!".

Re:Whoever modded parent 'flamebait' is full of it

[toadlife]

Actually, Bob Young from Red Hat mentioned that one reason they chose to make Red Hat Linux instead of Red Hat BSD was because they knew the GPL would keep Microsoft from running them over.

Well that does it. The GPL is great and the BSD license will cause you to be run over by evil greedy corporations. Bob Young said it, so it must be true, right?

Re:Whoever modded parent 'flamebait' is full of it

[Anonymous Coward]

What I'd love to see is a UnifiedBSD project that takes NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc. and creates one cutting edge BSD project to keep Linux in check. They'd probably need to make it GPL.

*sigh* The various BSD's have different goals. Some of those goals conflict with the goals of the others. Wanting a UnifiedBSD shows that you have no clue about what each of the BSD's is about. You are ignoring their goals or what they are about, yet you are wanting a unification?

Absolutely ridiculous. You'll end up with a non-starter, where people do a lot of talking, end up fighting and then walk away before any really confused love-child-of-a-BSD is ever born.

So what exactly do you want? Linux? So stick with it.

PS, the true irony, is that you are yet another person who does a whole lot of thinking but very little listening, but don't realise how uninformed you are. Start listening to what the BSD's are about before you proclaim what is wrong with them, what they need and why they are "dying".

OpenBSD vs NetBSD vs Linux

[Doc Ruby]

If the other NetBSD founder, Theo de Raadt, hadn't retaliated for being forced out of the project by suing and otherwise interfering with the project in 1994, NetBSD would be the "Linux" we're all talking about today. The biggest turning point in the Linux rise was when Slackware delivered thousands of nearly-free working Linux installer CDs which could be freely redistributed. Right when NetBSD was technically superior (including more architectures and a package installer system), but blocked by de Raadt.

If de Raadt had stayed in the project, providing the strong leadership that pushed his OpenBSD project to eclipse NetBSD, then maybe the 1994-5 years would have seen NetBSD keep the momentum (and developers) it lost to Linux, right when the Dotcom Bubble threw so much gas on the fire. NetBSD might now be where Linux will arrive only a few years from now.

The project failure that threw de Raadt out and left NetBSD vulnerable to his retaliation is the central lesson for similar FOSS projects. Now that the dust has cleared a great deal, I'd like to see an honest dissection of the relevant project management issues that underlaid the mutually destructive split.

Re:OpenBSD vs NetBSD vs Linux

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation -1
    100% Flamebait

When I said "I'd like to see an honest dissection of the relevant project management issues that underlaid the mutually destructive split.", I meant it. All TrollMods mean is to reduce lessons from an old flamewar to another flamewar. That's the kind of juvenille bickering and communications breakdown that helped kill NetBSD.

Re:OpenBSD vs NetBSD vs Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

kill yourself, negro.

Re:OpenBSD vs NetBSD vs Linux

[iggymanz]

nope, all the legal issues surrounding BSD at the time hindered its adoption, nothing to do with Theo. Neither NetBSD nor OpenBSD have many users compared to FreeBSD and MacOSX

Re:OpenBSD vs NetBSD vs Linux

[hwangeruk]

Not sure why you got a flaimbate mod, as you are pretty much spot on.
The hypocrasy in the guys missive, is that he was central to the politics when TdR was booted.

He also used the right word. Meritocracy. Thats how the world should work, but we all know that politics always seem to outgun talent. It's a shame. How many of us work for lame brain managers who use AOL and couldn't swap a board out in their PC yet are somehow entrusted with setting policy or strategy for millions of pounds worth of IT budget.

This speaks more about humans than technology. The lesson to learn is the people who "understand more"/"have talent" need to be working under a self sustaining framework. Linux has this framework, and the right people. And people like Shuttleworth accelerate it from time to time and they understand the importance of the right governance and contributing back/upstream.

NetBSD seems to have failed because of its own internal politics rather than technical ability. Its big of the guy to admit he was part of it, along with the TNF.

Re:OpenBSD vs NetBSD vs Linux

[Doc Ruby]

Critics disagree with your dismissal of the conflict among the NetBSD team in 1994-5. And your point about NetBSD/OpenBSD losing compared to other BSDs coincides exactly with mine.

Re:OpenBSD vs NetBSD vs Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm amazed how you manage to keep climbing up on the shit-list. Bravo, you now qualify as a PHB.

Re:OpenBSD vs NetBSD vs Linux

[Doc Ruby]

I am your master at every level, Anonymous shitty Coward. Kneel before ZOD!

Move ALL over from NetBSD to OpenBSD!!!

[enterix]

Why don't NetBSD migrate completely all its projects under OpenBSD? OpenBSD is the closest relative of NetBSD that broke off and is very successful anyway. I do not see much point of having 2 very similar projects. Combine the efforts, teams, and projects, get over differences and work together for good of all of us! For crying at laud!!

Its true, other projects are experiencing this...

[Halcy0n]

One such example, in my honest opinion, is Gentoo. I was a developer for about a year and a half before I finally called it quits. The major problem that I saw with Gentoo, and is the problem with NetBSD apparently, is that there is no main driving force to give the project direction. One of the great strengths of Gentoo is that there are many people working on things to scratch everyone's itch, but there is no general goal, and that is what leads to all of the flamewars. Everyone has their own idea of what Gentoo should be, and since there is no one to decide it, some people are content with arguing over it until the project dies from stagnation.

The best way to solve this, as I see it, is to adopt the idea of having a permanent "steering committee" for the project. Some major projects already do this, and it provides the central authority/leadership that is needed for any large scale project. Most developers/contributors don't want to deal with the politics that come from not having a central leadership, and there are the vocal few that will make it a living hell for everyone else.

I used to be a firm believer in letting projects govern themselves, but since I've been part of one that operates that way, I see the problems that come from that type of system, and they are crippling.

the GPL deals with implementation, not concept

[Chirs]

It is totally valid to take a concept from Linux and implement it in BSD. Sure, you can't just cut and paste the code--you need to rewrite it. However, the kernel designs are different enough that you would likely need to re-implement it *anyway*.

Too elitist

[leoboiko]

Some friends ask me why I'm so attracted to Net. To me, it's main feature isn't portability or network stack, it's minimalism. Current Linux distros doesn't seem to care about old hardware users (if you ever used aptitude in a machine with less than 64MiB RAM you know what I'm talking about). NetBSD is small, clean and ordered, like a carefully crafted piece of jewelry. /usr/bin from install fits in a screenful. And unlike linux, its source is intelligible to a curious student; they even got a whole man section devoted to kernel internals.

I used Net casually in old machines and was always satisifed.

Unfortunately the RTFA factor in NetBSD community is too strong. You're expected to know everything and if you don't, you're simply ignored. I've tried really hard to install Net in my Powerbook 3400c; I spent days burning CDs, studying manuals, fiddling with Open Firmware and reading mailing lists. I finally gave up and sent a detailed email about what I tried and what errors I received. The message was unanimously ignored in netbsd-users. I ended up installing good ol' Debian --- Debian MLs are not exactly forgiving, but at least people help you.

Re:Too elitist

[/dev/trash]

Get a newer machine?

NetBSD

[telemonster]

Friends and myself have moved most of our FreeBSD boxes to NetBSD. As FreeBSD has grown bulky and fat (like many linux distros), NetBSD was there to fall back on. NetBSD feels and acts like UNIX in a world where everyone wants to act like Windows.

If I'm running a web server, a shell host, or any type of internet server I don't want X windows and a bunch of other garbage. I expect the install to be small and tight.

The documentation for NetBSD is clear and good. Things are precise. When I search for answers to Linux issues, there is so many distros and versions and garbage in the way between me and what I'm looking for.

We are running NetBSD on modern hardware. The hardware support has been fine by me, from oddball USB sound adaptors used to feed live 24x7x365 audio feeds, to notebook computers with various PCMCIA cards acting as a network bridge, to P4 and AMD systems running high usage shell and web hosts for friends, NetBSD does what we want.

There are some flaws, yes. But no more than other operating systems. A Journaling file system would be nice, but other than that... We are happy.

People say "Why run NetBSD when there are other choices." Why run Linux? If it gets the job done, and does it well, I'm happy. I run Linux too, mainly for machines that need desktops (closed source video card drivers), and Java stuff.

Hey NETBSD, how about a donation jar so the community can donate to fund the development of a good journaling file system?

Troll much? Mods should be ashamed.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a complete and total troll, with his insane opinion presented as fact with nothing to back it up. Grow a brain or don't moderate.

"As is evident in the BSD line of systems, BIG corporations are taking your code, making good money, and giving back close to nothing."

And? If those companies didn't use the code, nothing would be any different. So who cares? That is a complete strawman. Just because Juniper uses FreeBSD as the base for their router OS, how did that hurt FreeBSD? Even if Juniper never gives anything back (not sure if they have), FreeBSD is still in the same situation as if Juniper never used it at all (say, if it was unfree GPL code).

"OpenBSD is dying even though they maintain ssh."

No its not. They just asked for donations so they could keep up their pace of development instead of having to slow things down. Companies and organizations like google, HP canada and mozilla donated thousands of dollars. OpenBSD is currently having an IPsec focused mini-hackathon in Germany in fact.

"NetBSD is dying even though it used to be very popular with the enbedded crowd"

No, it used to be slightly popular, but not really. Its not dying either, its just not as popular. Who cares?

"FreeBSD will die even though Apple used it as a base."

Nice unsubstantiated bullshit there.

"So every time a *BSD project dies, it is one more nail in the coffin of the BSD side of the GPL/BSD debate."

Except no major BSD project has died, except maybe Xfree86. It died because the people running it were morons, and others made a better alternative. The license had no impact on things at all, except that everyone was free to fork and make a better alternative. GPL projects die all the time, go look at sourceforge. That has nothing to do with the license debate you trolling asshat.

Jesus mods, you got trolled hard.

[Anonymous Coward]

Never got it to run on a brand new athlon? Like hundreds of people do all the time? This is nonsense, go check the bug tracker to see how many people reporting an error when trying to run on athlons. It works fine, and always has.

And benchmarks show NetBSD performaing as well as, or better than linux. Nice troll though, it clearly worked well.

Mod this troll down.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the article shows that one guy, who is easily the single worst thing to ever happen to netbsd, doesn't like how netbsd isn't as popular as linux. Nobody cares what he thinks, he is a moron and a fuckup. He got rid of the best developer they had, who instead made his own fork (openbsd) which is far better than netbsd.

"What I'd love to see is a UnifiedBSD project that takes NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc. and creates one cutting edge BSD project to keep Linux in check."

I'd love to see a UnifiedLinux project that takes debian, gentoo, fedora, suse, ubuntu, etc, etc, etc and creates one cutting edge linux project to keep windows in check. Oh wait, when you apply the same popularity=quality and multiple projects=bad logic to linux, it looks even worse than BSD. Oops, you lose the troll contest. Sorry, better luck next time.

A suggestion

[Peter_JS_Blue]

I think if Charles Hannum is unhappy with NetBSD he should jump ship to FreeBSD and/or OpenBSD and help out there. As for portability FreeBSD works on x86, AMD64, UltraSPARC, IA-64, PC-98 and ARM so I'm not quite sure what gap NetBSD was trying to fill. If a new CPU came out *BSD and Linux whould be ported to it very quickly.

Re:A suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

As for portability FreeBSD works on x86, AMD64, UltraSPARC, IA-64, PC-98 and ARM so I'm not quite sure what gap NetBSD was trying to fill.

Have you tried to run FreeBSD on an UltraSPARC for example? Saying it "works" is not telling the full story. Another way of putting it, is, it "sucks". If you know FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD on x86, try running those on an UltraSPARC. With OpenBSD on an UltraSPARC I may as well be sitting at an x86 OpenBSD machine (ignoring the SPARC hardware specifics, configs, etc).

NetBSD was super portable long before FreeBSD decided to move beyond i386, so I don't see how you can ask what gap NetBSD was trying to fill, when they already had it filled long before FreeBSD had even tried.

Re-implementing is not a synonym of porting.

[dolmen.fr]

Re-implementing is not a synonym of porting.

Porting is adapting the original code to a new environment. So it requires the right to modify the original code and to link it to the new environment. This would be allowed if the original code is distributed under the GPL license (as most Linux code) and the new environment is free as defined by the GPL (BSD license is). However the resulting set would be covered by the GPL. Any BSD projects would not accept a such change. So to port some code from Linux to BSD the code must be available with a BSD license.

It's the GPL, stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux succeeded where BSD failed because of 1 thing: the GPL. With BSD there simply isn't the incentive for large numbers of developers to stick to it. With the GPL, the incentive to stick to a project to the end is much greater. I know that if I were a FreeBSD contributor, for example, I'd be pretty bummed to see how much Apple took to make OS X and have given just about nothing back. Now that OS X is the #1 BSD operating system, the market for BSD itself has basically dried up, so any companies that used to sell BSD related products and services have simply moved to OS X and dumped their pure BSD efforts.

Re:It's the GPL, stupid.

[Doc Ruby]

OSX BSD is bigger than Linux, so it's obvious that more separates NetBSD from Linux. Like exactly the kinds of problems I mentioned, consistent with the problems we're discussing in the open letter.

Decoupling core-os and distro userland

[Anonymous Coward]

When is decoupling the kernel from vital userland resources an advantage?

Too bad all the BSDs actually decouple the core os-installation from the userland better than any Linux distribution.

When was the last time you could install another python/gcc/etc concurrently in some Linux distro without having to change the OS-base install nor trudging through package dependency hell (except for maybe Gentoo)?

Re:Decoupling core-os and distro userland

[sabtrli]

~ % dpkgi gcc ii gcc 4.1.1-6 The GNU C compiler ii gcc-3.3 3.3.6-13 The GNU C compiler ii gcc-3.3-base 3.3.6-13 The GNU Compiler Collection (base package) ii gcc-3.4-base 3.4.6-4 The GNU Compiler Collection (base package) ii gcc-4.0 4.0.3-6 The GNU C compiler ii gcc-4.0-base 4.0.3-6 The GNU Compiler Collection (base package) ii gcc-4.1 4.1.1-11 The GNU C compiler ii gcc-4.1-base 4.1.1-11 The GNU Compiler Collection (base package) ii libgcc1 4.1.1-11 GCC support library

Re:Decoupling core-os and distro userland

[Anonymous Coward]

Can one actually install all of them at once as one can with pkgsrc/FreeBSD? I do give Debian credit for having a much more flexible packaging system than say Red Hat where everthing is just baked in.

At work, for some reason, everytime we've asked Red Hat if they have some sort of exposed package framework that allows building and mutiple installations of said gcc/python (as it is allowed natively) and similiar to pkgsrc, they first fail to understand the question even after careful explanation nor acknowledge the existance of pkgsrc, then they mention something mysterious called Mach (chroot'd environment?), but will have to kill us if they say anything more.

Coup?

[The Wicked Priest]

Could someone elaborate on the "coup" Hannum says took place in 2000-2001?

Re:Troll much? Mods should be ashamed.

[mlwmohawk]

You can call my article a troll, but I disagree (obviously)

I think it is fairly accepted in the industry that the "free" versions of *BSD are losing market share. Most people would call this dying.

I would even say that NetBSD *is* dead as I don't think anyone can make a truely viable argument for using it.

Say what you want, your definition of dying is different than mine, but that does not make the post a troll.

Re:Troll much? Mods should be ashamed.

[Anonymous Coward]

> I would even say that NetBSD *is* dead as I don't think anyone can make a truely viable argument for using it.

For the market of embeded systems, there are always clients who don't like GPLed kernel, and NetBSD is really viable choice for such clients.

Re:Troll much? Mods should be ashamed.

[mlwmohawk]

For the market of embeded systems, there are always clients who don't like GPLed kernel, and NetBSD is really viable choice for such clients.

My only problem with this position is that it is not based on merit.

A concession

[dirtyhippie]

Honestly, I read this as a sort of concession to OpenBSD and FreeBSD (and to some extent linux), who have really taken the mantle in BSD land, more than anything else. You just don't hear much about NetBSD anymore - linux won in the embedded space because of its buzz, and all the other portability that was NetBSD's great strength probably just wasn't worth the effort, especially now that FreeBSD has taken to non-x86/alpha architectures and OpenBSD's number of platforms is growing again. Unless you want to install unix in a lightbulb, NetBSD is probably out...

Re:Troll much? Mods should be ashamed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it is, its based on the merit of keeping your own code licensed under whatever license you want, instead of being forced into whackjob psycho communist RMS's choice of license.

So BSD is dying, what about Solaris?

[ylikone]

Are they dying as well. Not meaning to troll or flame, just curious what happened to Solaris after it went free and "open". They were supposed to kill Linux, weren't they? Does anybody actually even use it?

Re:Troll much? Mods should be ashamed.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you made up complete and total lies. You are a troll. I even pointed out your complete and total lies, and you can't refute the facts, you just give this "I'm not a troll, I'm just a troll" bullshit. If you weren't a troll, you would not make up nonsense like "OpenBSD is dying" when its actually growing, and throw out the same old GPL communist strawmen like pretending that a company using code hurts anyone.

The Obligatory BSD is dying post

[rfc1394]

I've seen this one every time people post about BSD, so I thought I'd repost it here for those who haven't seen it.
----

It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

----

nah, Linux runs on more stuff

[r00t]

Linux does not even require an MMU. When you want portability, you use Linux.

Yes, Debian supports multiple gcc versions.

[r00t]

I'm pissed that nobody else seems to do this. Not even Gentoo can do it, at least not with mere mortal admin skills.

On my Debian box, I just typed "gcc\t\t" at the bash prompt. (tab twice to display completions) I get this:

gcc gcc-3.2 gcc-4.0 gccbug-3.0 gccbug-3.4 gccmakedep
gcc-2.95 gcc-3.3 gcc-4.1 gccbug-3.2 gccbug-4.0
gcc-3.0 gcc-3.4 gccbug gccbug-3.3 gccbug-4.1

Right now, plain gcc maps to gcc-4.0. I'm 95% sure I can change that via symlinks in the /etc/alternates directory.

Dang, I have 7 installed. I should probably delete a few. :-)

Re:Yes, Debian supports multiple gcc versions.

[mdhoover]

So can anyone else if gcc is built and installed to the same prefix using --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs and specifying a suffix during configure.

This also applies to any cross-compilers you have.

Switch versions with the -V switch, switch arches with -b

Re:Yes, Debian supports multiple gcc versions.

[r00t]

Since your URL is www.cross-lfs.org, your opinion certainly doesn't count! Compiling gcc is not my idea of fun. I guess it's not as dreadful as it was back in the 3.x days, but still... no thanks.

Debian makes it easy. If gcc 4.5 were available, "aptitude install gcc-4.5" would give me a "gcc-4.5" command. I set CC=gcc-4.5 to use it, rather than mucking with CFLAGS in some app's unfamiliar build system.

For easy cross-compiling I'd want this in /usr/bin:

somearch-gcc, somearch-ld, somearch-gas, somearch-cpp, somearch-g++

Then in ~/somearch/ I put symlinks to those, using the plain (gcc, ld, etc.) names. This lets me select the crosscompilers with my PATH environment variable.

So I never need a -V or -b option, and I probably don't need to hack any Makefile or configure script. Changing CFLAGS tends to break things, such as when the original Makefile needed -fPIC or -fno-strict-aliasing to build things correctly. Nearly always, it is safe to override CC on the "make" command line.

Re:Yes, Debian supports multiple gcc versions.

[mdhoover]

For easy cross-compiling I'd want this in /usr/bin: somearch-gcc, somearch-ld, somearch-gas, somearch-cpp, somearch-g++ Then in ~/somearch/ I put symlinks to those, using the plain (gcc, ld, etc.) names. This lets me select the crosscompilers with my PATH environment variable.

You dont need to do that for binutils, it effectively gets done already (ie under /usr/target-triple/bin except they are hardlinks to /usr/bin/target-triple-ld etc) and that is in the gcc drivers binary search path (gcc tends not to search PATH to find ld etc).
Cross-gcc will install to /usr/bin as target-triple-gcc.

As for invoking gcc, you set the driver specific options in CC not CFLAGS
(ie CC="gcc [-V XX] [-b target-triple] [-m32|m64]" or CC="[target-triple-]gcc[-version] [-m32|-m64]")
except for with some old packages using older braindead libtool which barfs on spaces.

Yeah, compiling it all down yourself can be a PITA (especially with multilib systems), the point I was trying to make though is that GNU binutils/gcc allows multiple installations to the same prefix out of the box if you use the correct configure options... I am surprised a lot of the distros dont do this though, more kudos to debian.

ffs is bad for flash

[r00t]

First of all, FFS has all the complexity and overhead of a filesystem designed for rotating media. On a real disk, seeks are slow. On flash, seeks are nearly free.

You are probably using ATA flash. This isn't "real" flash. Block zero isn't the real block zero, block one isn't the real block one. When you write to the flash, the device uses a wear-leveling algorithm to avoid burning out one part of the flash early. Blocks are getting remapped in the hardware.

On "real" flash, you don't get that. The OS must do the wear leveling. You could write a block device driver that did this, but it's better to design a filesystem specifically for flash. Flash has odd properties. Typical: you can write a "1" bit anywhere, or clear a whole 256 kB to all "0" bits. Clearing a 256 kB chunk is what causes wear, so you must avoid that. You kind of want a log-based filesystem, but writing out a "1" bit should be done directly.

Linux supplies jffs, jffs2, and (soon) logfs for this task. The joke is that the jffs2 filesystem is log-based, while the logfs filesystem is journalling.

Following the point of the article...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh who cares about NetBSD. ;-)

Nexenta = Open Solaris + Debian

[Anonymous Coward]

if he really strive for the best

Not irrelevant, IMHO

[devphaeton]

I've recently set up a small webserver on an old Cyrix 150mhz (shhh! don't tell my cable provider). I chose NetBSD to run on it. In the many years of having Solaris, then Linux, then FreeBSD workstations, I can't think of having this much *joy* poking around a unixy system before. NetBSD just seems so much more light, simple, and straightforward. It feels very 'pure', utilitarian, with minimal frills. I know I should have also found this with the above OSes too, but with NetBSD I feel like i'm really 'getting it' for the first time.

I guess it's hard to explain, nevermind.

But I hope NetBSD stays around and stays itself.

Re:Not irrelevant, IMHO

[RLiegh]

I hear you; it's my favorite out of all of them, though I hate the build.sh build system. Right now I have 3.0 with gnome 2.12 set up; if I want unixy goodness, it's a ctrl-alt-f1 away. The rest of the time, I enjoy gnome, firefox, all that.

Since this article appeared I have tried openbsd and freebsd; openbsd isn't that bad, but I personally don't like the fact that for their package system, they are making it so that when you build a source package the dependencies come as binary packages. That makes it harder to have a setup like I currently have with pkgsrc where I have all my source files and if I want to (later on) rebuild them or examine one I can.

Also, from what I can tell, the programs in openbsd's ports tree are often versions lower than ones in pkgsrc.

NetBSD does seem to be hemmoraging developers, and reading the mailing list (netbsd-users) the cracks are starting to appear. Since I'm not a developer, I fear for the future as well.

Hannum kicked out of NetBSD

[josephdrivein]

It seems that Charles Hannum has had his commit priviledges removed too, on 1st Sept, because he refused to sign a new agreement.
http://bsdnews.com/view_story.php3?story_id=5998

Re:Troll much? Mods should be ashamed.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is fairly accepted in the industry that the "free" versions of *BSD are losing market share. Most people would call this dying.

There IS NO MARKET SHARE.

We're talking about the BSD's. They are developed by their respective communities, for their respective communities. They (especially I can say this about OpenBSD), DO NOT WANT this thing you call "market share".

How can market share be dropping for them when they don't seek any, don't have any and won't ever have any? You expect something which does not exist can kill them? You expect that something they do not rely on can kill them?

Re:Troll much? Mods should be ashamed.

[Anonymous Coward]

My only problem with this position is that it is not based on merit.

My only problem with all your comments, is that none are of any merit.