From owner-freebsd-current Sun Dec 7 13:18:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA23494 for current-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 13:18:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current) Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA23454; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 13:18:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr02.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA14276; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 14:19:45 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr02.primenet.com(206.165.6.202) via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd014240; Sun Dec 7 14:19:38 1997 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA00995; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 14:17:33 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199712072117.OAA00995@usr02.primenet.com> Subject: Re: 3.0 -release ? To: grog@lemis.com (Greg Lehey) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 21:17:33 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <19971207165932.28970@lemis.com> from "Greg Lehey" at Dec 7, 97 04:59:32 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Great idea! Yes, I've read the multitude of messages that have come > in so far. But you've missed one point: why don't we merge FreeBSD, > NetBSD and OpenBSD? Maybe BSD/OS as well? After all, most people > don't understand why there are so many BSDs anyway. > > What, you say, they don't want to cooperate? They would lose control of something which they already have control over, and for which control is the desired end product (and OS's are nothing more than a neat side effect). > Oh. So why should they > want to cooperate on the question of the Ports Collection? Because they have something to gain personally by doing so... unlike merging the BSD's. Any merge will have to appeal to people without stepping into an area manned by their egos. The ports collection has not be seperately fenced in the process of kingdom-building, and thus is something on which the camps can cooperate on, where the marginal benefit is obviously greater than the marginal cost. Sure, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD could be merged, and sure, the marginal benefit would be greater than the marginal cost. It's just not that obvious, and three years of attempts at education on the mathematical basis underlying positive sum games theory have failed to make it non-obvious-but-well-understood. So at this time, an OS merge is a potitically dead end. But a ports merge is not. > Sure, the Ports Collection would be easier. It's less coupled with > the kernel. But does anybody out there really see all four (three?) > teams getting together and coordinating the mess? Has anyone with any official standing within the FreeBSD team *asked* anyone with any official standing at the other teams? Certainly, it would be to Jordan's benefit: it would buy him a broader market for a decoupled ports CD product, and maybe even packaging and coadvertising from BSDI for the thing. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.