Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 6 Dec 1997 18:57:08 -0500 (EST)
From:      "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net>
To:        tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert)
Cc:        shawn@cpl.net, chuckr@glue.umd.edu, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: 3.0 -release ?
Message-ID:  <199712062357.SAA07293@dyson.iquest.net>
In-Reply-To: <199712062210.PAA09913@usr02.primenet.com> from Terry Lambert at "Dec 6, 97 10:10:51 pm"

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert said:
> > > > hmmmm...  skip BSDI.  they want to charge absurd amounts, so make them
> > > > pay for their own ports..
> > > 
> > > Isn't that kind of narrow-minded?  Exactly the kind most people accuse
> > > many commercial companies of.  FreeBSD is free, to all comers.  Do you
> > > remember where doscmd came from?
> > 
> > Why should the FreeBSD people make the port collection work with other
> > OS's?
> 
> To get their tools to be cross-platform, and therefore be able
> to leverage work on other platforms which use the tools.
> 
When we have more than 1 or 2 platforms, then it will be *start* being
important.  My opinions are not "PC", so if you are easily politically
offended, please cease reading here.

> 
> There is not sufficient coordination between the various BSD's to
> ensure that something distributed via installer may be installed
> on FreeBSD.  That's what FreeBSD gets out of it.
> 
I see the problem with our cooperation being similar to the Microsoft
scheme of adopt, modify incompatibly and subsume.  Let's not waste
our time.  There is a severe amount of NIH abounding in other projects.

> 
> It's win-win.
> 
Sadly, nope, not right now.

>
> It also means that other people can add ports -- which offloads the
> work to non-FreeBSD people for some ports.
> 
It won't work that way.  It will be more like our technology with modifications
will be adopted, and we will be left out in the cold.  Let's continue
forward, and let other groups cooperate with us.  We are much less likely
to change our standards (due to inertia), and there is safety for them
in that fact.

>
> Again, it's win-win.
> 
I think that there are some assumptions here.  It is a good idea to
learn from history, and let's not make things more complicated than
they already are.

-- 
John
dyson@freebsd.org
jdyson@nc.com



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712062357.SAA07293>