Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 31st Aug 2006 01:29 UTC, submitted by sequethin
NetBSD Charles Hannum, co-founder of NetBSD posted to 3 major BSD lists saying 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."
Thread beginning with comment 157329
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Consolidation?
by sigzero on Thu 31st Aug 2006 01:59 UTC
sigzero
Member since:
2006-01-03

Maybe the various ones can merge? That way you have...oh wait, Theo would never do that. Variants has caused part of the problem with BSD. With Linux you have different packages but in the center you have the kernel. That is what the BSD folks should do, separate the kernel with userland. Focus developers...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Consolidation?
by openwookie on Thu 31st Aug 2006 03:12 in reply to "Consolidation?"
openwookie Member since:
2006-04-25

Variants has caused part of the problem with BSD. With Linux you have different packages but in the center you have the kernel. That is what the BSD folks should do, separate the kernel with userland. Focus developers...

The BSDs already share drivers. Due to similar APIs (especially between NetBSD & OpenBSD) and licence compatibility, porting a driver from one to another is rather trivial. A joint kernel effort would not have any benefit. Why does this misconseption continue to exist amongst the Linux fanboys???

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Consolidation?
by bryanv on Thu 31st Aug 2006 15:01 in reply to "RE: Consolidation?"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

Because Linus didn't say it was a good idea.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Consolidation?
by twenex on Thu 31st Aug 2006 18:02 in reply to "RE: Consolidation?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Because each of the BSDs takes "a complete OS" and rewrites it to work on its own kernel. Also, on a superficial level (which is exactly where many of these disputes take place), the man pages often say things like "FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD Manual", not "BSD Manual".

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Consolidation?
by phoenix on Thu 31st Aug 2006 03:34 in reply to "Consolidation?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

With Linux you have different packages but in the center you have the kernel. That is what the BSD folks should do, separate the kernel with userland. Focus developers..

Oh god, no. That's the worst thing that could ever happen. The beauty of BSD is that you know you are getting a working system, from the kernel through the userland apps. When there's a change in the kernel, the userland apps are updated to work with that change ... before the next release. You know where you are getting the apps from, you know what is in the base OS, you know it will all work together as one cohesive whole.

With Linux distros, you get a little bit of this and a little bit of that, stuff from dozens of different places, not always nicely integrated or even cohesive. You do an update to less, and end up with a new networking stack. There's no concept of "base OS", that core that never changes except between OS releases, that the rest of the apps can be layered on top of. A Linux distro is nothing more than "how many packages can we get to compile and run together". And you can get all kinds of weird things happening when you start to mix and match packages (like swapping hotplug, udev, and discover 1/2 around).

The BSD and Linux development methods are very different; and the Linux distros would do well to learn more from the BSD side of things.

Reply Parent Score: 5