Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:28:29 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@freebsd.org> To: Gilles Chehade <veins@evilkittens.org> Cc: miros-discuss@mirbsd.org, misc@openbsd.org, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, netbsd-users@netbsd.org Subject: Re: The future of NetBSD Message-ID: <20060831192632.T82634@hub.org> In-Reply-To: <44F7619B.8010609@evilkittens.org> References: <20060830232723.GU10101@multics.mit.edu> <98f5a8830608301731s2b0663e3g94b0bd32f8a06a78@mail.gmail.com> <c6d37fe0608310259k12fe629eve59e59042fcfdb4c@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.BSM.4.64L.0608311312190.8977@odem.66h.42h.de> <950621ad0608310654h78ae0023g346abd108815ae72@mail.gmail.com> <20060831110112.J82634@hub.org> <f34ca13c0608310843p4e28b57eoec2f60737c034ddb@mail.gmail.com> <20060831184715.B82634@hub.org> <44F7619B.8010609@evilkittens.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilles Chehade wrote: > 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 ? I'd rather have Adaptec provide a source code driver for their cards directly, then have Scott Long have to fight with unavailability of documentation itself ... if the driver works, what do we need documentation for?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060831192632.T82634>