Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 20:34:28 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> To: pete@kesa26.Kesa.COM (Pete Delaney) Cc: freebsd-platforms@FreeBSD.org, pete@RockyMountain.rahul.net Subject: Re: FreeBSD CD-ROM 2.0.5 - Any SPARC Porting Underway? Message-ID: <199508300334.UAA05746@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> In-Reply-To: <9508300139.AA03506@kesa26.Kesa.COM> from "Pete Delaney" at Aug 29, 95 06:39:07 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
>
> > > I briefly checked it out. It feels dissapointing to see the Free/Net
> > > BSD UNIX community splintered.
> >
> > Haveing been around these groups for 2 years (yes, go read the NetBSD 0.8
> > release notes, I was a part of that effort) I do not see them as
> > ``splintered''. The fill different needs. NetBSD is much more of a
> > research type of operation. They do not care a whole lot about providing
> > finally polished releases of there code, though there is nothing serious
> > wrong with there releases, they don't see a need to spend major efforts
> > on installation tools, or end user niceness. Nor do they present anything
> > as complete as the FreeBSD ports collection.
>
> Looks like it's time to install NetBSD on one of my SparcStations one of
> these days. I'll check out the Release Notes. It's intesting to know that
> NetBSD is more of the research group and FreeBSD the release group.
^^^ ^^^
Better word would have been ``a''.
You probably coupled that a little tighter than the relation is, we do not
necessarly take the NetBSD code wholesale and polish it up for release,
we pick and choose things we see that we like and have the time to bring
over (they do the same with the FreeBSD code :-)).
> > FreeBSD on the other hand is interested in polished releases with maximal
> > end user comfort.
> >
> > A lot of FreeBSD's technological advancements have come from the research
> > vehicle of NetBSD where to code is developed and proven to be a workable
> > solution.
>
> But why haven't the various arch's been brought over to FreeBSD.
FreeBSD does not have the man power nor the equipment resources
to make this a practical thing to do at this time.
> > At many levels there is direct cooperation between NetBSD/FreeBSD developers
> > and perhaps it is time for someone to start putting forth a clearer picture
> > of just what has been going on if you take a close look at things.
>
> That would be nice.
>
>
> > IMHO, the 2 groups are _good_ things to have around. And expect FreeBSD
> > in the future to continue to graft things into its tree from the NetBSD
> > tree as they come to bear fruit.
> >
> > >
> > > > they have more platforms but we have a better install and cover PC
> > > > hardware better..
> > >
> > > Sounds like the old X11R6 vs XFree disintegration. I see no reason why
> > > they should be different source trees.
> >
> > It is very hard to do ``research'' in a tree that is always been worked
> > on for ``production release'' status. We have a heard enough time now
> > trying to work in a branched cvs tree to for the purpose of allowing
> > developement continue forward while the release team works on spit shinning
> > the code for production release.
>
> Are both groups now using cvs?
Both groups have been using cvs to manage there code from day 1.
> >
> > > > you chose which you want..
> > >
> > > I saw AT&T break up UNIX into a lot of individual releases and thought
> > > it was stupid. Same for X on the PC and everything else. This doesn't
> > > smell any different.
> >
> > Haveing had my noise buried in it for as long as I have it smells quite
> > different.
>
> I wonder if you actually appreciated AT&T makeing a seperate release tape
> for sparc, i386, and other archs. As far as X, I find it nicer to have 1 CD
> set for both SPARC and Intel arch's. I do see the Xfree integration as
> being incomplete.
Perhaps you should try to find out more about the reasoning that was behind
AT&T's release mechansims that caused them to release the product the way
they did. It was not practical to make a tape that was loadable by multiple
machines (almost impossible for i386 vs anyone else, almost impossible for
sparc vs anyone else, etc).
OS's are quite different beasts than applications when it comes to release
media. X is an application by my definition of one.
>
> > The future may bring to bear other fruit in the world of
> > Unix source code trees as well, NetBSD/FreeBSD/Linux are not going to
> > have this field for ever. One constant in this arena is that of change,
> > it always happens :-).
>
> Yea, I think it's healthy. Like DNA evolution. Perhaps merging source tree's
> is a bit like sex, it bears a new creature with new features, often better,
> hopefully healthier, sometimes a monster. Maybe it's time for a little
> evolution.
Evolution has been occuring in both source trees from day 1, at times we
had people who commited code to both trees, though that has pretty much
died by the way side due to the simple fact that it is very hard for
a serious developer to keep up to speed on both systems as the rate of
evolution is becoming very rapid due to the number of people working on
the respective code bases.
> >
> > Yea, AT & T caused a lot of Bell Labs derived source trees to be created,
> > by now they have sold it all off, and the trademark as well as real control
> > over ``Unix'' has been handed to what looks to be a decent organizaion, and
> > just maybe the 1178 spec will make things fly towards at least a unified
> > standard to base your code against. We will, IMHO, never in our live times
> > see a single unix source base.
>
> Actually I see a unified standard more like wanting a pure super race
> as some of the more racially pure/homogenious cultures were dreaming about
> a few decades ago. Clearly it's nice to have a variety of tools/creatures
> for different needs/nitches; like cars for different occasions. Now with
> Sun Microsystems focusing on the commercial market and allowing SunOS
> and XNeWS to rust in the graveyard I see an opportunity for a CD publishing
> outfit like Walnut Creek to produce a CD that can be used on other
> archectures other than just Intel that has most, if not all of the
> applications that are in FreeBSD.
I'll toss a small marketing point to you, the sum total of all the workstations
sold in the US last year does not meet the number of PC shipped in a 2 week
period by _one_ large OEM. Tell me again where the market is??? I'll take
0.1% of the PC market over 10% of the workstation market any day of the week...
I am not anti workstation, quite the contrary, I help companies spend billons
of dollars a year in that market, and IMHO, FreeBSD does not belong anyplace
close to that world as we are not going to get the $10K to $100K software
package writers to port to a <$100 OS. Even the likes of BSDI are not
going to ever see any of that market segment, IMHO.
It's neat and cool that I can run NetBSD on my Alpha, but I doubt very
much that I can load up a copy of Synopsis and run a 5 million gate
logic synthisis job on it. Or fire up a copy of Mentor's layout tools,
or Valid's or Cadences or anyone elses tools on any given supported
platform. (The don't have a PA-RISC port for HP9000/7xx's or I could
tell you this for sure as I would have tried it :-)).
--
Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com
Accurate Automation Company Reliable computers for FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199508300334.UAA05746>