Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:28:29 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@freebsd.org> To: Gilles Chehade <veins@evilkittens.org> Cc: miros-discuss@mirbsd.org, misc@openbsd.org, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, netbsd-users@netbsd.org Subject: Re: The future of NetBSD Message-ID: <20060831192632.T82634@hub.org> In-Reply-To: <44F7619B.8010609@evilkittens.org> References: <20060830232723.GU10101@multics.mit.edu> <98f5a8830608301731s2b0663e3g94b0bd32f8a06a78@mail.gmail.com> <c6d37fe0608310259k12fe629eve59e59042fcfdb4c@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.BSM.4.64L.0608311312190.8977@odem.66h.42h.de> <950621ad0608310654h78ae0023g346abd108815ae72@mail.gmail.com> <20060831110112.J82634@hub.org> <f34ca13c0608310843p4e28b57eoec2f60737c034ddb@mail.gmail.com> <20060831184715.B82634@hub.org> <44F7619B.8010609@evilkittens.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilles Chehade wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: >>> >>> I doubt that'll be productive -- NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD have all >>> different goals... >> >> Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one >> example ... companies like adaptec have to write *one* device driver, for, >> what, 50+ distributions of linux ... for us, they need to write one for >> FreeBSD, one for NetBSD, one for OpenBSD, and *now* one for DragonflyBSD >> ... if we had *at least* a common API for that sort of stuff, it might be >> asier to get support at the vendor level, no? >> > > How would a common API provide more support from the vendor ? What does the > API have to do with releasing documentation ? I'd rather have Adaptec provide a source code driver for their cards directly, then have Scott Long have to fight with unavailability of documentation itself ... if the driver works, what do we need documentation for?home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060831192632.T82634>