Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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like a hopeless fanboy who won't face facts even when the founder of the damn project is telling you it's a bunch of outdated crap.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 :-)
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.
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
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.
--
make install -not war
Can BSD do the same? ;)