Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 10:24:26 -0700 From: Studded <Studded@gorean.org> To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@zippy.cdrom.com, davids@webmaster.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/pci pcisupport.c Message-ID: <373DADCA.F6C2A2A0@gorean.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote: > > > you lend credibility to those who say that FreeBSD and Linux won't be able > > to compete in the corporate arena because what's coded is what the > > developers want, rather than what the users want/need. > > I don't see it that way so much as the simple fact that a lot of users > basically need to change the way they think of themselves, period, and > that's simply the name of that tune. > > Users have been conditioned by commercial software into becoming > "consumers" rather than seeing this free software stuff for what it > is; the software equivalent of a community building a new meeting hall > through group effort. If the community just sits around in their > houses and periodically calls the meeting hall committee to ask how > construction is going, they wouldn't be particularly surprised to hear > that the answer was continually: "Terrible, where the hell are you > guys?!" With software, for some reason, many people have yet to > make that perceptual leap. That's great Jordan, but the problem is that's not how you're positioning FreeBSD when you talk about it in the media. You can't say on the one hand that FreeBSD is a superior choice for "the real world" of server operating systems and then when the very customer base you've attracted to your product expects a certain level of professionalism respond with; "But we're just a bunch of volunteers!" Of course I'm not talking about the pimply 13 year olds who want FreeBSD to be windows because they don't know any better. Those kinds of "demands" don't deserve a reasoned response, other than perhaps a form letter type cloo stick, which probably won't help anyway but at least then we can say we tried. My point is that you can't have it both ways. You can't say "FreeBSD is a valid solution for the real world demands of commercial use" and at the same time say "but we have no responsibility to actually respond to real world needs." For a long time now the FreeBSD project has needed a clear definition of itself. I unsubscribed from the -advocacy list a few days after it opened because it was immediately apparent that everyone had a different goal, most of which were not compatible with one another, and none of which were going to succeed. The occasional posts that leaks over from -advocacy in the last few months have done nothing to assuage my opinion. Until you, DG, core, WC, or WHOEVER is willing to put 'em up on the table and say, "We are THIS," FreeBSD is going to continue to founder around in the miasma it's been mired in for the last 3 years. The fact that we have accomplished as much as we HAVE in the last 3 years is purely testimony to the stubborness and force of will of many of its adherents. Because most of the dogs are pulling in a vaguely similar direction, the sled moves forward, albeit not as fast as it might. However we are never going to be able to compete with anyone, be it microsoft, linux, or whoever if we're not willing to define and implement a clear vision of who and what we are. Hell, "We are a purely developer-driven vanity OS which happens to be the best solution for certain server applications" is an acceptable definition, if someone would just step up and say that. It's not the definition that *I* want, but I don't get to make those decisions. The problem with a clear definition of purpose is that we're going to lose some talented people who can't/won't work under that paradigm. Well guess what, that is ALREADY HAPPENING. What people fail to take into consideration is the new talent that would be drawn to the project if it was made clear that the project supported goals that are important to them. As for your other argument INRE "that's a good idea but we have no one to do it," that's a copout, plain and simple. If the project had adopted a firm policy of "No gratuitous gcc-ism's in the base" 2 years ago when replacing gcc (or better yet, making the base completely compiler independant) was first discussed, we'd be done by now, not just finishing the first phase as we are with the egcs merge. If the project had implemented a firm policy of "all third party sources must be contrib-ified when they are upgraded" x number of years ago, that project would (in all likelihood) be done by now too. I could go on and on, but I won't. Both because I've already covered a lot of this stuff and because I'm not suffering under the delusion that I'm going to change anyone's mind here. In the last few months while I've been away from the day-to-day stuff I can see that a few things have changed, but most of them haven't. I expected that of course, and in fact because my expectations were so low I've actually been pleasantly surprised. The egcs move is a good one. Stuff like that, and the CVS upgrade are actually much more important than I think a lot of people realize. It's too bad that it has taken so damn long to do, but sometimes that's just life in free-software land. In case anyone has missed it, my point is simple. If FreeBSD (collectively) wants to be more than a footnote to the history of unix development, it MUST change the way it does things. Period, end of story. Whether it's willing to do that or not, I don't know. I really hope so, but if I was taking bets I wouldn't be able to give better than even money because I'm just not sure. The really sad thing is that while we're unwilling to provide the world, or even ourselves with a clear definition of who we are, microsoft and linux are more than willing to define themselves in terms that WE actually deliver on, and they are incapable of living up to. Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?373DADCA.F6C2A2A0>