From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 31 22:24:37 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 546C816A4DE; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:24:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from veins@evilkittens.org) Received: from smtp1-g19.free.fr (smtp1-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7483D43D86; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:24:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from veins@evilkittens.org) Received: from [0.0.0.0] (evilkittens.org [82.66.68.213]) by smtp1-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07B6390B93; Fri, 1 Sep 2006 00:24:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <44F7619B.8010609@evilkittens.org> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:24:27 +0200 From: Gilles Chehade User-Agent: Mail/News (X11/20060812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marc G. Fournier" References: <20060830232723.GU10101@multics.mit.edu> <98f5a8830608301731s2b0663e3g94b0bd32f8a06a78@mail.gmail.com> <950621ad0608310654h78ae0023g346abd108815ae72@mail.gmail.com> <20060831110112.J82634@hub.org> <20060831184715.B82634@hub.org> In-Reply-To: <20060831184715.B82634@hub.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 22:24:37 -0000 Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> >> I doubt that'll be productive -- NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD have all >> different goals... > > 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? > How would a common API provide more support from the vendor ? What does the API have to do with releasing documentation ?