Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 08:17:52 +0900 (JST) From: Noriyuki Soda <soda@sra.co.jp> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> Cc: Noriyuki Soda <soda@sra.co.jp>, dfr@nlsystems.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/pci pcisupport.c Message-ID: <199905122317.IAA00977@srapc342.sra.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <66043.926546011@zippy.cdrom.com> References: <199905120926.SAA19601@srapc342.sra.co.jp> <66043.926546011@zippy.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> On Wed, 12 May 1999 14:53:31 -0700, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> said: >> I agree that this is better way to solve the conflicts between new-bus >> and newconfig. Although I wondered why FreeBSD's core decide to choose >> new-bus before Usenix. > We didn't choose it "before USENIX" as if it were somehow part of the > objective to get this feature in before a public event, it simply came > up that Peter had the time to actually integrate new-bus from the > Alpha platform to the x86 This doesn't answer my wondering. The core members can safely postpone the decision after Usenix, because all of core members must know that both new-bus people and newconfig people will come to Freenix track. Who is the chair of Freeunix track ? :-) > Whether new-bus or newconfig is "better" was really, honestly not > the issue so much as were the following two bullet points: Quite interesting. This means that FreeBSD doesn't choose technology by it's design, but by which spokes loudly. I definitely say that this is worst way to design software. > 1. Does this bring the alpha and x86 architecture ports into better > alignment so that any future permutations can be more easily > brought across and/or simply shared between the two platforms? BSD/OS, NetBSD and OpenBSD are all based on newconfig on various architectures. FreeBSD/alpha is directly derived from NetBSD/alpha and NetBSD/alpha is based on newconfig. And at the time when the decision is made, FreeBSD/i386 and FreeBSD/pc98 are already converted to newconfig. So this is definitely is not the reason. > 2. Have we had a good history of communications between the people > doing new-bus vs our history of communication with the newconfig > people? Have you ever asked to newconfig people? No, no one of core members who takes charge of kernel part contacted to newconfig people, ever. Only one communication is held between one of core members who is actually new-bus one, and newconfig people. And this is requested by newconfig people, not by one of core members. Note that there are core members who supports new-bus, everytime this issue is raised between core, new-bus people can reply about this, newconfig people never have that chance. If you'll make offical decision, always you can call both people, and can hear both opinion. But this is never done. > The latter point is actually *really important* since we've already > learned that having totally separate groups who talk to us maybe once > a month (if even that often) is just not a workable strategy for the > long term and often causes more confusion for our users than it > actually helps the project. > We talk to Doug Rabson on a practically daily basis on a wide > variety of issues whereas the only real communication I've seen from > you has been during this conflict. And did you call one of the newconfig people? No. The contact address of newconfig people is already publically announced, but no one of core who takes charge of kernel part contacted to the address. We contacted to the one of core who takes charge of kernel part, and talked all problem about new-bus, before the decision is made. So, which does effort of communication ? > Before that, I had no idea that a Noriyuki Soda even existed. :-) Actually I am not a FreeBSD person, but one of observers of newconfig project. Some of you does know that my name is listed in NetBSD contributer's list. Although I send-pr'ed to FreeBSD sometimes. This is the reason I never posted to this mailing list. The reason I posted now is I am disgusted in FUD about technical points of newconfig. (I don't really care non technical points.) All of core should know about the benefit of the newconfig, because we already talked about it to one of the core when the decision is made. The reason why real newconfig people doesn't appears here is that there is language barrier. How did you think about Nakagawa-san's English? Do you know the pain about writing English when he knows his English is actually quite broken? (Yes, my English is broken, too. But probably I am a person who don't know what is disgrace. This is rare character and not thought good in Japan.) Can you write Japanese ? If no, why do you blame the one who cannot write English. Actually they will write English, if one of the core asked it. But no one of core request it, ever. So why no one never stops the FUD like the later postings ? > To try and put it another way, I've seen a lot of arguing about the > technical merits of the two systems but very little arguing about how > to solve the HUMAN FACTORS aspect of this situation which are really > and truly what led up to the core team's decision. I've also called > for greater communication between the two groups and so far all I've > seen is a lot of arguing and expressions of general annoyance from > Japan - that is NOT communication! Please point out the "general annoyance from Japan". If you read it carefully, you can find the technical point is correct. The problem of representation is caused by language barrier, not by the annoyance. > Proper communication involves regular discussion about incremental > improvements to the code base and how best to carry them out, biting > off problems in small chunks and dealing with each completely before > moving on to the next. Simply wandering off with the entire problem > for 6 months and working on it in isolation DOES NOT WORK and we've > proven this again and again. It only leads precisely to the situation > we have here now with newconfig and also PAO. Then you don't know about language barrier. Please learn Japanese, and write/speak Japanese, then you can find why the voice from Japan is not enough. Actually Japan is the country where FreeBSD most succeeded. There are over 50 books in Japan which includes "FreeBSD" in it's title. This is not joke. And this is the result of Hosokawa-san, Nakagawa-san, Kato-san and many other Japanese people's effort. > To put the problem in a larger context, people often ask me what all > the FreeBSD people in Japan are working on and it's a point of eternal > embarassment to me that I usually have to say "I honestly have no > idea." Why don't ask Japanese people, then? Why don't you going to learn Japanese? We all Japanese tries to learn English, though there is big barrier between English language and Japanese language. > We really really really need to fix this if we're to avoid > further repetitions of this kind of thing and that's why I'm flying to > Tokyo at the end of this month to talk with you guys - we're clearly > not communicating adequately and I'm willing to do what I can, > including physically relocating myself on a periodic basis, to fix it > from this side. This is wellcome, of course. > What are you doing to fix it on yours? :-) We've done our best, why don't you know our effort ? -- soda@sra.co.jp Software Research Associates, Inc., Japan (Noriyuki Soda) Advanced Technology Group. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199905122317.IAA00977>