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 157411
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Geeze...
by kaiwai on Thu 31st Aug 2006 10:28 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Why do people say that NetBSD and OpenBSD must merge? has anyone forgotten about FreeBSD?! FreeBSD is quite ok with the porting to different platforms, they too need more contributors, so wouldn't it be best to merge with FreeBSD and come up with a compromise - merging togethe and forming a BSD operating system that has tbe best of both OS's.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Geeze...
by Oliver on Thu 31st Aug 2006 11:34 in reply to "Geeze..."
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Why merging three systems, that are in fact very good in their own way of doing it? Using code from the pool of all three systems is very common in *BSD world, so there is in fact a lot of interchange going on.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Geeze...
by Soulbender on Thu 31st Aug 2006 12:21 in reply to "Geeze..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Why do people say that NetBSD and OpenBSD must merge?"

Because some people don't know any better.

"so wouldn't it be best to merge with FreeBSD"

No.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Geeze...
by Ronald Vos on Thu 31st Aug 2006 20:49 in reply to "RE: Geeze..."
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

"so wouldn't it be best to merge with FreeBSD"

No.


Could you at least elaborate a bit more?

It's been noted that NetBSD produces a lot of projects that benefit and are ported to the other BSDs, like PKGSRC.

But it's the kernel that's behind, and needs a lot of work to get to the same level as the other projects. And as noted by the linked memo, the organisation is sick, and won't encourage it.

Meanwhile the other worthwhile userland and driver projects by NetBSD can be transferred wholly to other projects (they're ported anyway), instead of remaining with what is described as an inefficient directionless organisation.

You'd only lose part of the portability (and FreeBSD seems to be catching up anyway), and if some of the NetBSD people would flee to FreeBSD, we might end up with less half-supported, half-buggy ports.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Geeze...
by eMagius on Thu 31st Aug 2006 13:41 in reply to "Geeze..."
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

Because OpenBSD and NetBSD are still very similar (and benefit greatly from code sharing) while FreeBSD is a much different beast.

That said, it wouldn't be the code or the operating system merging in either case, just moving developers from one project to another.

Frankly, since I didn't follow BSD before 2000 (ex-Linux user), I've never really seen the draw of NetBSD (apart from support for a few more esoteric platforms). OpenBSD supports well over a dozen architectures and moves forward at a steady clip; at this point, speaking objectively, the end-users would be better off with NetBSD developers contributing to OpenBSD than developing a seperate project.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Geeze...
by kaiwai on Thu 31st Aug 2006 23:02 in reply to "RE: Geeze..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

But with that being said, the NetBSD focus doesn't really fit into what OpenBSD is doing; OpenBSD is 'security at all costs' - atleast with the case of FreeBSD, sure, there is a focus on security, but use as a server, workstation, scalability, multiplatformness and lots of others are also focus's, something which NetBSD has alot more in commmon with than OpenBSD.

Some of the stuff that couldbe merged would be threading; from what I understand, the KSE model is complex and there is performance hits on non-x86 systems; there is a proposal to replace that (from the last quartly update), but if NetBSD already provides a logical replacement which is designed for multi-platformness by design, then why not utilise it?

Reply Parent Score: 1