Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:54:31 -0400 From: Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df@mired.org> To: rick-freebsd@kiwi-computer.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Juan Rodriguez <juan.fco.rodriguez@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] adding two new options to 'cp' Message-ID: <17614.17367.666515.448013@bhuda.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <20060731172858.GA84042@megan.kiwi-computer.com> References: <200607271150.k6RBoM9p031745@lurza.secnetix.de> <44C8FB65.9020102@FreeBSD.org> <44CE03D2.2050803@centtech.com> <17614.4005.407223.621637@bhuda.mired.org> <44CE199C.2020500@centtech.com> <17614.8289.134373.387558@bhuda.mired.org> <96b30c400607310847s1d2f845eo212b234d03f51e9a@mail.gmail.com> <20060731172858.GA84042@megan.kiwi-computer.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> the first one because of compatibility with the large base of Linux systems > out there, I'll say it again: Being compatible with some other system is *not* a reason to add something to FreeBSD. Sure, if we decide a feature is useful, then there's a lot to be said for making it compatible with other systems that already offer that functionality. But adding a feature just to add compatibility is nothing but bloat. And it *doesn't matter* how large a base of users that other systems has. I don't run FreeBSD because it's popular; I run it because I believe it's the best solution to my problems. I believe that's true because we - and CSRG before us, and Bell Labs before them - worry more about quality than about popularity (well, at least if you ignore OSI). If I wanted a popular OS, I'd run Windows. If I wanted a popular Unix, I'd run OSX. Turning FreeBSD into Linux is no more desirable than turning it into Windows. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17614.17367.666515.448013>