Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Jan 2013 01:41 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y "A senior OpenBSD developer has complained on a mailing list that upstream vendors of free and open source software are adding in changes without any thought of whether downstream users could adapt to the change. Marc Espie said this would hurt smaller players by not allowing them to keep up with the changes. Basically what is happening is that numerous changes are being made to Linux and smaller projects like OpenBSD cannot keep up with the changes. And, according to Espie, not all these changes are strictly necessary."
Thread beginning with comment 548139
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

that is true, but the whole point of having a compatible bare minimum is that things can be ported easily between unix like operating systems, OpenBSD is not the only OS that isn't Linux and has a team of people porting software.


And as far as I can tell, GNU sed does conform to standard. It just has a little extra that people happen to find useful and use. It's not as though the actual bare minimum implemented by GNU userland tools are somehow nonstandard.

So GNU does keep the bare minimum. But we shouldn't let interoperability get in the way of providing convenience as long as it doesn't break the standard.

Or is that what we actually prefer?

Reply Parent Score: 4

peejay Member since:
2005-06-29

And as far as I can tell, GNU sed does conform to standard. It just has a little extra that people happen to find useful and use. It's not as though the actual bare minimum implemented by GNU userland tools are somehow nonstandard.


Embrace and extend.... ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"And as far as I can tell, GNU sed does conform to standard. It just has a little extra that people happen to find useful and use. It's not as though the actual bare minimum implemented by GNU userland tools are somehow nonstandard.


Embrace and extend.... ;)
"

But not extinguish. It's not like this is part of a master plan to steal all the developers. It's the natural result of having an open system that requires reciprocation. More development happens resulting in even more development - a positive feedback loop.

Reply Parent Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The GNU tools aren't at fault it is developers that aren't conforming to the standard which is the problem.

It really is that simple. If I want a piece of software to run on another unix whether it is commericial or opensource it is a pain to port as discussed in the article.

Reply Parent Score: 2

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

The GNU tools aren't at fault it is developers that aren't conforming to the standard which is the problem.

It really is that simple. If I want a piece of software to run on another unix whether it is commericial or opensource it is a pain to port as discussed in the article.


What definition of "conforming" are you using? Does "conforming" mean not using extensions? If so, do programs that use, say, Qt libraries, non-conforming because they're not mandated by the POSIX standards?

But as the article and people here say, a lot of people aren't looking to have their things run on other unixes. They're not obligated to, especially since Linux is popular. It's the OpenBSD ports maintainers that want to port software.

Reply Parent Score: 3