From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 17 02:47:17 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BB04106566B for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 02:47:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mozolevsky@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pz0-f54.google.com (mail-pz0-f54.google.com [209.85.210.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F09358FC19 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 02:47:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by dady13 with SMTP id y13so2539412dad.13 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:47:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=ut89nfqwGiiMDlaJSDJPOAMAgqlSnpUAEAAWi4yeLnY=; b=jwyisjB8a/LEcfHmGwEqkfH2ING7mb5pGqsJNag6eSN8z/u9OmxgdZ2N7zF9whbTHX X2/ZdeIB67TR+9OjdmOXOVleRo8CzAQiY8WXMI4/qrzqyordBMvFuDmoYko4HY7BA30/ 6hOgIcJYX3JeYTLw+84+DhAlBw/h1DckYPm3c= Received: by 10.68.74.170 with SMTP id u10mr30683249pbv.99.1326766912121; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:21:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: mozolevsky@gmail.com Received: by 10.68.28.199 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:21:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20120117010239.GA29529@richh-imac.office.boxdice.com.au> References: <1326756727.23485.10.camel@Arawn> <4F14BAA7.9070707@freebsd.org> <20120117010239.GA29529@richh-imac.office.boxdice.com.au> From: Igor Mozolevsky Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 02:21:11 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: REaPxA65dLLWmCaECsxUlGm5fcs Message-ID: To: richo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, William Bentley , WBentley@futurecis.com Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 02:47:17 -0000 On 17 January 2012 01:02, richo wrote: > This would be a different argument if all the devs were paid a salary. Isn't this a bit of a cyclical argument: developers don't work because they are not paid a salary, the end-user base shrinks, BigCo doesn't want to pay for someone to put extra work in getting fBSD to do something that it can get elsewhere (eg Linux), fewer still developers work on fBSD, end-user base shrinks, BigCo is even more reluctant, even fewer.... -- Igor M. :-)