From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 10 19:33:47 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CADF16A4CE; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:33:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51E7C43D46; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:33:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.11] (junior-wifi.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2AJY5JX088022; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:34:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <4230A06A.5040706@samsco.org> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:30:50 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050218 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Richards References: <20050310181903.GU98930@myrddin.originative.co.uk> <3301.1110479070@critter.freebsd.dk> <20050310183446.GW98930@myrddin.originative.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20050310183446.GW98930@myrddin.originative.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on pooker.samsco.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:56:13 +0000 cc: Brian Fundakowski Feldman cc: Maxim Sobolev cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: Brooks Davis cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: alfred@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: Poul-Henning Kamp cc: des@des.no cc: "M. Warner Losh" Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/compat/linux linux_socket.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:33:47 -0000 Paul Richards wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 07:24:30PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >>In message <20050310181903.GU98930@myrddin.originative.co.uk>, Paul Richards wr >>ites: >> >> >>>That's the crux of FreeBSD's problem really. We can't tell the >>>commercial world to change the way they work to suit what we want >>>to do. If we want them to take FreeBSD seriously we have to fit >>>with the expectations they have. >> >>No, the crux of FreeBSD's problem is the differing opinion on how >>serious we want to be taken. >> >>I for instance, do not want "the commercial world", (by which we >>in this case means "application producing companies") to take us >>anymore serious than we are able to be. >> >>Being realistic about our capacity and ability is far more important >>to everybody, than promising specific goals of dubious reachability. > > > I have no disagreement with that position. In fact, raising this > issue bolsters that position by showing just how far away we are > from being able to produce a product suited to that sort of commercial > environment. > Oh, please stop the FUD Paul. This argument is just getting silly. You've now turned this thread into a diatribe of why FreeBSD isn't suitable for a commercial environment. Just relax for a minute, and consider that your view of the world isn't the same as others, and that professing your view of the world doesn't make it any more correct nor does it help promote FreeBSD. K, thanks! Now that that is said, we as a project will do the best that we can to support backwards compatibility. We can't guarantee that because significant security or reliability fixes might preempt that, but we will also do our best to document what changes need to be bad and to keep then as minimal as possible. Now, for forwards compat, what you are saying is that all APIs present now in RELENG_5 should be completely frozen and never touched. Well, what you are actually describing is a RELENG_5_X branch, where everything is frozen, and only critical bug fixes and security fixes are made. RELENG_5 is still a development branch, though it is a stable one where only tested features and fixes are committed. Making it completely frozen makes it nearly impossible to have future releases that maintain the state of the art. If the only time that a new feature, or even a new, non-conflicting flag is allowed to be introduced is at a major rev, then we'll quickly fall out of relevancy since there will be no point in waiting 18-24 months for minor improvements to be allowed out of the gate. So, contrary to your uninformed and closed view of the world, there is quite a bit of software out there for other OSes that sets minimum version levels for the OS that often happens mid-stream for the major cycle of that OS. It happened with OSX 10.2.4, it happened with MacOS 7.6, it happened with NT 4.0 SP3, it happened with W2K SP2, and I'll bet a dollar that it will happen with WinXP SP2. The major Linux vendors don't even try, and ISVs and IHVs often wind up shipping a version of their software for every point release, or just tell people to use a certain point release and don't call them if a different point release doesn't work. I've developed commerical apps for major companies for all of these OS's, so I think I can speak with some confidence here. What we are doing in FreeBSD is no different than any other OS, and it's a strong improvement over the API anarchy that we had before. So instead of throwing up your hands and declaring that no one understands you and that FreeBSD is doomed, consider the opposite opinion that we are taking positive and appropriate steps to be more commercially viable, and that those steps are in line with other OSes. And if you change your argument again to find yet another different angle that you can whine about, I'll k-line you. Thanks, Scott