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 157350
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Consolidation?
by openwookie on Thu 31st Aug 2006 03:12 UTC 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[3]: Consolidation?
by openwookie on Thu 31st Aug 2006 20:41 in reply to "RE[2]: Consolidation?"
openwookie Member since:
2006-04-25

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".

No. BSD != Linux. When will Linux fanboys realize that the Linux way is not the best way for everyone??

There is not a common BSD userland like GNU, although much of the userland is derived from a common code base (BSD 4.4). Each branch of the BSDs have introduced their own tools, and they tend to be easily portable between BSDs. For example, OpenBSD created pf, OpenSSH, hotplugd, (and soon OpenCVS).

Also the kernels *are* different for good reason. OpenBSD does not have efficent multi-CPU support because they would have to comprimise on security. So they are taking the slow approach to adding that particular feature, their implimentation will be SECURE first, performance can wait. Linux (and FreeBSD) often has the opposite approach, support as much as possible and fix broken/unsecure implimentations later. And that's ok, it's just a different philosophy.

The main thing that Linux people need to understand is that there is *a lot* of cross pollination between the BSDs. If one has a great idea then it will likely be adopted by the others (pf is a good example). There is a ton of benefit to having three different OSs that can borrow the best code from each other.

Reply Parent Score: 1