Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:01:07 -0500 From: <Tony@ServaCorp.com> To: "Andy Ruhl" <acruhl@gmail.com>, "Charles M. Hannum" <mycroft@mit.edu> Cc: misc@openbsd.org, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, netbsd-users@netbsd.org Subject: RE: The future of NetBSD Message-ID: <NFBBIPBEGOCLEMPOBKDLGEILNOAA.Tony@ServaCorp.com> In-Reply-To: <78a2305a0608302027y228e1992kb9444bbc67b93fea@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andy Ruhl wrote: > > On 8/30/06, Charles M. Hannum <mycroft@mit.edu> wrote: > > The NetBSD Project has stagnated to the point of irrelevance. It has > > Let me start by saying I'm probably not qualified to reply to this > thread, but I was never worried about making a fool out of myself > before so here goes... > > I am a former user of FreeBSD and occasional user of OpenBSD. Haven't > had much experience with either in the last year or so. > > So... > > Stagnant? Yes. Irrelevance? Possibly. > > But, BUT, can anyone tell me where I can get an OS that I can build > easily from the same place to run on my NEC PDA as well as an old IBM > PowerPC box I just happened to have sitting around and doing nothing > else? And I'm typing this now on an AMD64 box that ran stably long > before FreeBSD did (yes, I tested both). Nobody else can say that. Is > it relevant? It's funny how much more relevant NetBSD's philosophy > becomes as i386 becomes irrelevant. While the others (FreeBSD in > particular) seemed to be scrambling for another architecture, NetBSD > just quietly supported them without any fanfare (IA-64 excluded, but > it's more irrelevant than NetBSD!). > > There are strengths that go right down to the core of the project. > They are still there. They won't ever be irrelevant. They just need to > be built upon. The cleanliness, portability, and ease of use is there. > > So you're probably right. A strong leader is needed to recruit people > to complete new projects and generally keep things relevant. If it's a > people problem, I hope someone can fix it. > > Too bad the guy who used to say "I probably don't know what I'm > talking about" isn't here to comment. > > Andy With a straight line like that, I cannot resist: Seems like somebody is complaining that stability is the same thing as stagnating to the point of irrelevance. A chicken running around sans head is quite active. Not really the same thing as productive. Microsoft Windows goes patch-happy, and the rate for compromised machines goes to five cents each. I don't know what I'm talking about (no probably about it) but there's stuff running around considerably worse.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?NFBBIPBEGOCLEMPOBKDLGEILNOAA.Tony>