Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 08:55:07 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com> To: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@estienne.CS.Berkeley.EDU> Cc: gibbs@freefall.cdrom.com, hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: SVNET Meeting? Message-ID: <8953.795545707@freefall.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 18 Mar 95 00:22:45 PST." <199503180822.AAA18883@estienne.cs.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 3) Linux and IBCS2 compatibility. Supposedly they got the WP demo to work > just that morning. Cool! Soooooooooreeeeeen! :-) > 4) GPL clean kernel. Hmph. It's a nice checkbox item, but I think our policy of providing function first and "purity" second will prove the right one. As you say, those with more purist tastes can simply take it out again. > This was when I started my presentation. The topics I covered were: > the new VM system and other kernel performance improvments (John > and David's work), better install tools, work on IBCS2 and Linux binary > support, and our goal of stability for this release. I was more prepared Let me also just quickly hasten to say that when in front of a technical crowd like this, it's easy to go away with the impression that ones strengths and weaknesses are purely technical rather than technical, marketing and support. However, as influential as we all are, we're but a drop in the bucket when compared to the _user base_ out there. I think the one thing we can agree on for all interested parties is that the system has to be completely stable. After that, the issues become more a question of who as the best _integration_ and broadest tool base (e.g. our installation and our ports and packages collection). Nice features like a merged VM/buffer cache get the hackers panting loudly, but most users won't even know it's there! This is not to denigrate David and John's work _at all_, simply to point out that a nice engine is not enough if the body looks like crap. Only the very most discerning car enthusiast will be able to tell that the engine sounds nice enough to buy the car. > 1) Why are there two groups? What are the philosophical differences that > keep the two groups apart? If one group has some cool feature working, > will the other incorperate it? I think that people also underestimate the value of competition (while simultaneously living in a country where competition has created almost all of the most visible technical progress - oh the irony!). If there were only one group again, would we feel the wolves so strongly nipping at our heels? I doubt it, and I think that far more complacency would result. I like the fact that there's NetBSD there to occasionally rub our noses in something when we slow down! > "The hardware is cheap, readily availible, and there are enough bugs in > 4.4 to be worked out even with concentrating on only one platform to > keep us busy. This is not to say that ports to other platforms will > not occur. In fact, work on a Sparc port is underway." Which brings up the interesting question of whether or not we ever intend to get serious about this port. Jack is clearly out of the picture here, both for this and very possibly the SMP stuff, and I think it's time to either put it firmly aside for the foreseeable future or reassign one or both of these projects elsewhere. Anyway, thanks for representing us here, Justin, and thanks for the summary! Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8953.795545707>