Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 16:54:10 -0800 From: "Sam Leffler" <sam@errno.com> To: "Terry Lambert" <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: "Julian Elischer" <julian@elischer.org>, <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Long, Scott" <Scott_Long@adaptec.com>, <re@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Maksim Yevmenkin" <myevmenk@exodus.net>, "Murray Stokely" <murray@freebsdmall.com> Subject: Re: Bluetooth code Message-ID: <03fc01c286c1$59e2a170$52557f42@errno.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211071328530.5860-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <038501c286b2$5efb1890$52557f42@errno.com> <3DCAFCA8.DF1FF47A@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Sam Leffler wrote:
> > I don't want to see multiple instances of Bluetooth support in the
system.
> > As you noted there's a netbsd implementation already. Having multiple
> > incompatible implementations of the same protocol stack is silly. If
this
> > one is better than the netbsd one then great, but I want to see answers
to
> > these questions.
>
> Usually, I'm on the same page with you... but this time, no.
>
Careful, "He's got opinions and he's not afraid to use 'em!"
> There are a *lot* of FreeBSD-specific changes that have gone into
> FreeBSD without going into NetBSD/OpenBSD/BSI/OS-X, and there was
> not a lot of complaining (except by a few of us) when those changes
> went in.
>
> Complaining when someone makes NetBSD-specific changes, and then
> doesn't port them to FreeBSD, is, well, not really sane.
>
What I was doing was questioning the blind acceptance of a large piece of
work that appeared to have no application and potentially overlaps with work
going on elsewhere. Maksim has answered my questions in this regard and I'm
satisfied.
Bottom line: when you want to add something to the system, be prepared to
justify it.
>
> > Using netgraph for prototyping is fine. Using it for a final version
means
> > only freebsd users can make use of it. There aren't enough *bsd users
> > around to not _TRY_ to get everyone sharing code. Perhaps you should
port
> > netgraph to other bsd's?
>
> It's really easy to make the same argument about the VM system in
> FreeBSD, the VM system in NetBSD, or the VFS changes in FreeBSD
> that made it impossible to share VFS modules between FreeBSD and
> NetBSD -- an ongoing process that started in 1994, when FreeBSD
> and NetBSD adopted different parameter definitions for the cookie
> support in VOP_READDIR() for restarting directory enumerations over
> NFS.
>
> The counterargument is "port NetGraph to NetBSD, OpenBSD, and BSDI".
>
> The issue that's being raised here is "Who gets to lead the parade?";
> the answer "Be a follower, not a leader" isn't very satisfying to
> anyone.
>
The issue is should we commit something to the source tree that may be of
limited use to people. If the software provides functionality to a
significant group of people then I'm open to its inclusion regardless of
whether it's present in any other system. However one must not lose sight
that adding code to the source tree has a cost, independent of whether it is
"hooked up to the build". If the code doesn't have someone to maintain it
as the system changes then it can become a boat anchor. Code rot is
unhealthy for maintaining quality software. Code rot happens quickly when
noone uses it.
Sam
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?03fc01c286c1$59e2a170$52557f42>