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

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...

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?

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 :)

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".

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: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.