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 157356
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Linux
by phoenix on Thu 31st Aug 2006 03:39 UTC in reply to "Linux"
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

The difference I see with linux kernel development
and BSD development (the latter I'm not that familiar
with), is that Linux doesn't have any secret mailing
lists, cabals, repositories. People aren't elected or
given the right to make decisions by anything other
than their technical abilities. You don't need to have
some special bit, or be inducted into the club, or
have a "mentor" before you can get a patch in. You
just have to write good code.


No, the difference is that Linux CVS access only lets you play with the kernel sources, while BSD CVS access lets you play with the sources to an entire OS.

You don't need a mentor, or to be elected to core, or have access to "secret" mailing lists in order to get patches commited to a BSD CVS repo. You just need to send patches that make sense, with nice style, and actual design behind it. In other words, you just need to submit good code.

Not just any Tom, Dick, or Harry can get a patch commited to a BSD or Linux CVS repo (although sometimes it seems like they can on the Linux side of things).

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Linux
by sbergman27 on Thu 31st Aug 2006 03:44 in reply to "RE: Linux"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""No, the difference is that Linux CVS access only lets you play with the kernel sources, while BSD CVS access lets you play with the sources to an entire OS."""

How do I obtain this Linux CVS access you speak of?

Git outa here! ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Linux
by nick on Thu 31st Aug 2006 03:50 in reply to "RE: Linux"
nick Member since:
2006-04-17

What do you mean, "no"?

Yes. That *is* a difference I see.

While non committers can have patches accepted, it
seems like it isn't that easy; and those with commit
access can get patches through virtually unreviewed.

Secondly, Linux doesn't use CVS for SCM, but git. And
I don't see the big deal (or much difference,
development-wise) by having everything in a single
tree.

It isn't like BSDs can make a wholesale change to the
kernel API and audit their base system + everything
they pull in (not unlike most Linux distros). BSDs
tend to need to be very conservative with kabi
changes like Linux. For example there was a recent
netbsd debate (IIRC) about whether to disallow 0 length
mmaps. If such a change was to be made, they wanted
a new syscall so it wouldn't impact old programs.

But hey, if I want access to glibc sources I can
download them. If I want access to gcc sources I can
download them. What's the problem and why would that
difference make a big impact to success of the project,
on a development level?

Reply Parent Score: 2