Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:04:54 -0800 From: Pedro Giffuni <pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: jb@cimlogic.com.au, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Some one working on a SPARC version? Message-ID: <332DC006.6D3C@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> References: <199703171750.KAA08087@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert wrote: > > An Aristotilain mean is a split of a set into two sets; it assumes > that the universe is binary in nature. > I thought Aristoteles was displaced from the common world after Galileo :-). I'm a Zen reasoner, anyway (I have a long history in martial arts, I guess that's why I see things so different), there is no absolute truth. We both perceive things different and we can both be right. When a contradiction is given, humans tend to interpret it and usually produce some pretty cool ideas, animals will run away or hide in their previous knowledge. > > The assumption implicit in your statement (and reiterated here) is > that "there are significant differences between these systems". I > disagree. The differences are of level of integration, not ones of > technology incompatability, and therefore they are significant only > in the political sense. Politics is a bad perspective from which... > I agree the technological differences are not imposible to overcome, but if they are not significant why aren't we using their features and viceversa? We want to become multiplatform so is not a just a political issue. > > > NetBSD doesn't want our ports tree > > Unlikely... what benefit could they perceive in this? > I don't know why, perhaps they like building their things the old way (that is not too different), anyway if they'd wanted it, they could have adopted it long ago, like OpenBSD did. > > and they probably don't want our VM either. > I also doubt this is true, but it's an interesting doubt that I wanted to leave in the air. They haven't adapted our VM because of a technical issue, but this issue was caused by a philosophical issue: they have always been multiplatform because it was *their* objective. FreeBSD's objective was not having a multiplatform OS from the start, but rather having a sophisticated (386) port. > > > Add to this that we don't even unify our criteria as to where each > > program should go, or how the tree is distributed and it will be > > evident we are diverging each day. > > This is an issue of kingdom building breeding kindom building; I defy > you to demonstrate the merit of encouraging duplication of effort this > way. > I don't understand the (proposed) challenge, maybe I wasn't clear. Every effort in standarizing our systems will bring nearer the final objective of having advances benefit both parties. You were around somewhere in the discussion about defining _BSD44_ (or was it _4_4BSD ?): how can we work together if we don't even agree on what makes us different or what makes us alike? Pedro. > Regards, > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?332DC006.6D3C>