From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 31 22:23:43 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F85616A4DA for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:23:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from miod@ribeyre.gentiane.org) Received: from ribeyre.gentiane.org (odyssee.gentiane.org [80.65.224.82]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC2043D49 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:23:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from miod@ribeyre.gentiane.org) Received: from ribeyre.gentiane.org (miod@localhost.gentiane.org [127.0.0.1]) by ribeyre.gentiane.org (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k7VMNvI3003730; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:23:57 GMT Received: (from miod@localhost) by ribeyre.gentiane.org (8.13.6/8.13.4/Submit) id k7VMNufi019854; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:23:56 GMT Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:23:56 +0000 From: Miod Vallat To: "Marc G. Fournier" Message-ID: <20060831222356.GE25515@ribeyre.gentiane.org> References: <20060830232723.GU10101@multics.mit.edu> <98f5a8830608301731s2b0663e3g94b0bd32f8a06a78@mail.gmail.com> <950621ad0608310654h78ae0023g346abd108815ae72@mail.gmail.com> <20060831110112.J82634@hub.org> <20060831184715.B82634@hub.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060831184715.B82634@hub.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Cc: misc@openbsd.org, Harpalus a Como , "Constantine A. Murenin" , Thorsten Glaser , netbsd-users@netbsd.org, miros-discuss@mirbsd.org, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The future of NetBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:23:43 -0000 > Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one > example ... companies like adaptec have to write *one* device driver, for, > what, 50+ distributions of linux ... for us, they need to write one for > FreeBSD, one for NetBSD, one for OpenBSD, and *now* one for DragonflyBSD > ... if we had *at least* a common API for that sort of stuff, it might be > asier to get support at the vendor level, no? Sure, support as a .o file, ready to link against a unique API. Just what Atheros delivers already. That's not something all BSD projects are willing to accept. Miod