Date: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 19:13:29 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), graichen@sirius.physik.fu-berlin.de, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ideas from netbsd Message-ID: <2225.815800409@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Nov 1995 13:37:03 MST." <199511072037.NAA18262@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Which means that instead of the one example Jordan cited (AFS) of a > a desirable piece of NetBSD-only code, the tally is up to a minimum > of three: AFS, JAVA, World21. I think the actual number is higher. This depends on how you count them up. 1. An AFS is underway for FreeBSD and should be finished fairly soon. 2. We need to integrate our own pthreads support badly enough that JAVA would better serve as incentive for a native port. I don't think that pursuing NetBSD ABI emulation to that end is the best use of resources. 3. The World21 LKM really needs to be ported. > To think that FreeBSD cannot benefit from NetBSD ABI support but > NetBSD can benefit from FreeBSD ABI support is Hubris on the part > of the FreeBSD camp. I didn't say "can not benefit", I said "wouldn't benefit enough." I don't think this is hubris so much as it is a logical appraisal of where best to apply our limited engineering resources. We need native pthreads and AFS support, and I think the World21 LKM would be easier to maintain as an actual FreeBSD LKM. Rather than chasing NetBSD compliance in service of these goals, we should go directly past Go and collect $200. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2225.815800409>