From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 7 09:19:35 2004 Return-Path: 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 5B8A316A4CE for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:19:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from a2.mx.netnorth.co.uk (a2.mx.netnorth.co.uk [82.148.225.16]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C704B43D31 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:19:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from xaphod@freebsd.co.uk) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (port=49998 helo=localhost) by a1.mx.netnorth.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.24; FreeBSD) id 1AeGsK-0002qQ-4M for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:50:22 +0000 From: xaphod@freebsd.co.uk To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Message-Id: Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:50:22 +0000 Subject: Where is FreeBSD going? (View from the trenches) X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:19:35 -0000 It seems to be accepted fact that original "Where is FreeBSD going?" post is nothing but a Troll. That said I've always felt that just because something is being said by an idiot it doesn't necessarily follow that what's being said is idiotic. My perception of the responses to the original message is that it touched a raw nerve or two. As a result quite a lot of people have been airing some opinions which, up to know, they've kept to themselves. My opinion is that this is a good thing. Getting stuff out in the open lets people discuss it, and with a bit of luck something good can result. So, as everyone's doing it, I thought I'd lob my opinions into the pot. Apologies in advance if it turn's out that I'm actually lobing around hand-grenades. I've been a user of FreeBSD ever since 1996. As of 1999 I've used FreeBSD as my sole OS. Today employed by a small ISP where all the unix systems are FreeBSD. Indeed, my decision to use FreeBSD has actually had a profound impact on the course of my life. I didn't pick FreeBSD at random, and I didn't pick it by accident. I sat down an invesigated every available alternative. FreeBSD stuck me as the most well documented, best supported, and the most powerful Unix OS on the market. Up to now I've not seen anything that has made me think otherwise. But now I'm finding myself getting a little uneasy. A lot of my current fears stem from the current state of 5. I run 5.1 on my desktop, laptop and servers. I know 5 is not rated for server use, but I evaluate each RELEASE on a case by case basis. In testing 5.0 I discovered it has issues, so I didn't use it. Whereas 5.1 was perfectly stable. So I started using it. Looking at 5.2, without testing it on any of my boxes as yet, my perception is that it's a bit flaky. Now, you could say this situation is entirely my fault, I should never have touched a new technology release until it went STABLE. Frankly, you'd be right, it is my fault. But again it comes back to my perceptions. In this case my perception of what would be happening in the future. When presented with a choice between 4.8-RELEASE, and 5.1-RELEASE I had to consider future upgrades. Upgrading major versions is a pain - a complete reinstall is usually the best course of action. In the case of 4 to 5, there were major changes in the filesystem - so a reinstall would definitely be required. The roadmaps implied that 5.2-RELEASE would be released in September 2003. Furthermore (I've tried to find the evidence I found to suggest this but I can't, so I'm basing this on my imprecise recollection) I did gain the impression that 5-STABLE would be out by 2004. So, all things considered, risking 5.1-RELEASE seemed reasonable. FreeBSD has always struck me as a conservative project. Being a conservative SysAdmin I like this. I like it when changes happen in a careful and considered manner. So even though 5.2 is currently causing me concern, I'm not overly concerned. I can wait and see what the initial reactions are, then investigate it on my laptop then try it on my desktop. When I'm 100% happy I can then go live with it on my server. So I'm not required to use 5.2, any concerns are of little consequence to me, and of no consequence to the FreeBSD community. However, what worries me is the way 5 seem to have become the battle ground for more internecine conflicts amongst different areas of the FreeBSD community than anything that's gone before. GEOM, devd, SMP, static root, etc., etc. Somehow even advocacy is causing conflicts! Okay, so not everybody has opinions on all of, or indeed any of, these subjects. But enough people have an opinion to cause a bikeshed style disagreement. Then sooner or later a member of -core gets involved, and is instantly outnumbered. People start sounding off questioning the judgement made in deciding between two courses of action. Without any intention that it should do so, things then start to get personal. The economic concept "utility" is measure of happiness or satisfaction. Utility is a useful concept for me to use in trying to get my point across. Consider the GPL'd Linux. In addition to any other utility, Linux hackers gain utility by being part of a fight for "Freedom". Whatever the Linux community produces, good or bad, is taken to be a poke in the eye for the likes of Microsoft - and having MS going at Linux gives them the sort of positive feedback, a sort of kudos as it were, that makes them feel good. Which in turn gives them the push to overcome the odd bump in the roadmap. FreeBSD is an open-source project like Linux. Other than what it is, FreeBSD has no underlying ethos. So where is the utility for FreeBSD hackers? Well, if you ask me utility is derived from the fact that writing code is fun. From the fact that by hacking FreeBSD you are part of project that provides others with the best tool for the job. By bikeshedding all the time we are attacking the very thing that give people their utility. We are in away applying negative feedback. Consider the point of view of a somebody who has put in a lot of their own personal time and a lot of coding effort to bring us some new kernel feature. Attacking the efforts of such an individual deprives him of their utility, deprives them of very thing that make their effort worthwhile. So, in the end, it's no different than expecting someone to work for free. Who among us would fail I'd get downright angry if their boss decided not to pay them? So it's not surprising the standard response from committer is "submit a patch". This is nothing more than the FreeBSD equivalent of a tetchy "If you're so clever, do it yourself". I dislike negative feedback. Being dyslexic it takes one comment about bad spelling to make me grumpy for days. To some degree we are all the same. We all hate to hear negative comments, we'd much rather hear nice things. However, we accept that this is not always possible. For instance, I get paid to do my day job. And during the day, my boss has the right to give me any feedback he thinks is relevant. Positive or negative. I can prevent negative feedback by listening to his opinions and instructions, and doing my best to give him what he asks of me. If we disagree we discuss it and because I'm a wage-slave I leave my personality out of it. But FreeBSD does not have wage-slaves. It has people who are trying to have fun. I'd say negative feedback which questions the assumptions underlying a person's fundamental source of fun is a personal attack (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). Most people can rise above such things, and mostly they do. But when it's all you're getting, fairly soon you'll feel entrenched, and ignore all criticism. No matter how well intentioned, or how valid, that criticism. When you think about the motivations of everyone connected with FreeBSD everyone is loosing utility. When -core have their decisions questioned. When -core blow cold on advocacy suggestions from users who feel that's the only way they can contribute. When a knowledgeable someone with no time on their hands tries to pass on some suggestions to a commuter and gets shot down in flames. It's everywhere you look. It's this negative feedback which is destroying FreeBSD. From the trenches, FreeBSD's future looks bleak. I don't care if 5.2 is delayed for however long it takes. I don't really care if it's flaky. Picking 5.x over 4.x is my decision and I'm willing to live with all the consequences. I don't care if 5-STABLE is postponed to 2005. I don't care if xyz is done this way, or that way - I'm willing to defer to them that know more about such things than I do. But I do care that when it arrives 5-STABLE is the best OS that money can't buy. However, we're all too busy bickering that nobody is having fun any more. I have no idea what the solution is. All I know making FreeBSD more democratic is not the answer. If we listen to what everyone says then If we're not careful FreeBSD 5-STABLE will be something we're all responsible for, but which nobody wants. An OS designed by committee...