Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 15 Nov 2015 22:04:20 +0200
From:      Dan Partelly <dan_partelly@rdsor.ro>
To:        Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?
Message-ID:  <D46F4B83-24CA-4728-A7BE-9F9BFF773DCA@rdsor.ro>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmoniBAmWTf9MkCCMYhRbPLc=0%2Bz5kRSijXfqX9VZvm8jDg@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <0650CA79-5711-44BF-AC3F-0C5C5B6E5BD9@rdsor.ro> <CAJ-Vmokfo_BGWji9TrgQ40oRxqht9-2iEZVon7aQxR_93Ufxyg@mail.gmail.com> <702A1341-FB0C-41FA-AB95-F84858A7B3A4@rdsor.ro> <CAJ-VmoniBAmWTf9MkCCMYhRbPLc=0%2Bz5kRSijXfqX9VZvm8jDg@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> It's all fine and good making technical decisions based on drawings
> and handwaving and philosophizing, but at some point someone has to do
> the code.

HI Adrian,

. What I eluded too is not a small project. It is something that would =
need proper discussion and agreement, since it would be pervasive and =
touch=20
critical parts of the OS, such as the init system, system config =
databases , and add proper services management facility. It would also =
benefit=20
from a new form of  kernel IPC. It would need consensus from FreeBSD =
board or whatever to have any chance of even starting up. Nobody in his=20=

sane mind would start it otherwise. Most likely he would work in vain,
=20
And when consensus that something HAS to be done will exist, and from =
empty discussion you would have a implementation plan, when maybe the =
FreeBSD foundation would get involved and sponsor such a important =
project to see it done to the end.


And there are efforts today to go down the path I mentioned, NextBSD is =
the incarnation of such an effort. And while they offer code and they do =
make progress I do not seeing anyone in FreeBSD beeing too eager to =
commit that code :P (Im not saying that you should adapt launchd and add =
another comapt layer for FreeBSD for mach ). I for one like what Solaris =
does. What  Im saying that such work would never be possible directly in =
FreeBSD, because lack of consensus that anything serious should be done, =
apart from patching on sides.

 I am saying that gathering consensus that something has to be done must =
exist before any code is written . Else you wont get much.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D46F4B83-24CA-4728-A7BE-9F9BFF773DCA>