Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:17:52 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: wes@softweyr.com (Wes Peters) Cc: maury@OAAI.COM, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NT vs Linux vs FreeBSD Message-ID: <199907150217.TAA11653@usr07.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <378CD63A.459F14A0@softweyr.com> from "Wes Peters" at Jul 14, 99 12:26:02 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Of course only a dreamer would suggest that some anti-forking is > > due for the BSD world. Somebody pinch me! > > OK, you're pinched. You're also wrong. Forking isn't bad, it improves > the breed. The three BSD releases aren't all that similar, and each > brings a unique perspective that COULD NOT be addressed by one of the > other BSD projects. I think this is baloney. Linux is addressing the SMP, multiplatform, and agregate distribution as we speak. Forking is an artifact, an emergent property, with roots in both the organizational structure that is carried by all of the BSD groups, and in the tools used by the BSD groups (CVS, in particular) implying strictures that _require_ herd behaviour to prevent forks. The number of Linux distributions is actually a bad thing, for Linux continuity _and_ Linux marketing. But the multiplicity of Linux distributions is _not_ analogous to the forking that has occurred in the BSD world. The closest approach Linux has made to forking are the "ac" kernels, the close calls with libc vs. glibc, and the GGI project (other, older examples, exist). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199907150217.TAA11653>