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 157359
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Linux
by nick on Thu 31st Aug 2006 03:50 UTC 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