Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:44:14 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk>, Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> Cc: Darren Henderson <darren@nighttide.net>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The Merger, and what will its effects be on committers? Message-ID: <4.2.2.20000312122651.00b1e880@localhost> In-Reply-To: <38CB9F5A.8B1C364F@originative.co.uk> References: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0003112034290.431-100000@theory8.physics.iisc.ernet.in>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 06:44 AM 3/12/2000 , Paul Richards wrote: >The difference between the Linux community and the FreeBSD community is >that there is only one serious commercial player at the moment. In the >Linux world, no one company can dictate direction because the key >developers are scattered across many of them and so there is no majority >control by any one player. > >In FreeBSD's case, WC has a hefty influence on the project for many >reasons, not least the fact that they employ some of the most prominent >project members. Very true. WC runs the machines on which the builds are done, and employs a large percentage of the key developers. It is far and away the largest distributor of FreeBSD discs, just began to run the yearly FreeBSD convention, publishes the only book on FreeBSD (though others will follow), and does other things which give it overwhelming influence. >I think the foundation and the core team are perfectly reasonably >solutions to this problem. The question instead should be, how do we >think the core team should be selected so that we're confident that it >*is* an impartial body. A self-selected body that is strongly influenced >by a single company with a vested interest in the project is not really >impartial. Agree. The core team and the board of directors of the non-profit should NOT be the same to avoid problems with conflicts of interest and to provide a broader perspective. While the core team members are technically superb, echnical competence is not necessarily a measure of one's independence or that one is the optimal person to deal with the broader issues which the board will face. Some core team members, in fact, are likely not to WANT the responsibility of dealing with non-technical issues. They're there because they want to code, not necessarily because they want to administer. Finally, the circle of people who contribute to, build upon, and use FreeBSD is much larger than the core team. >I personally feel that there are barriers in place that prevent other >commercial players entering the FreeBSD market. For example, in the >discussion over the use of the FreeBSD trademark, Jordan said that a >distribution with a different installer would not be allowed to use the >mark since it would increase the workload of support staff. Indeed. And this is a very serious barrier, since installers are one of the key selling points for different distributions of operating systems. Jordan has also said that he would insist that ALL of FreeBSD come on any disk that bore the trademark. This is, IMHO, a bad decision. It raises costs for would-be competitors by forcing them to use extra discs for their value-added components. It prevents the generation of platform- specific discs, which could include more value for one platform and omit items which the buyer will never use. It also puts creators of FreeBSD distributions at a disadvantage relative to Linux distributors, who don't face this constraint. >It was innovations such as the installer that allowed Linux companies to >compete in the market place and ultimately, it was the proliferation of >Linux companies that brought it in to the mainstream of the industry. >Surely, allowing other distributions to use different installers would >provide an opportunity for value-add that would allow other companies to >enter the market. > >I don't think the argument about support is a fair one. WC can get on >with supporting their distribution, in the main people who buy other >distributions will go elsewhere for their support. There will probably >be some increase in the mailing lists regarding the different installer >but we're all free to discuss more or less what we want in the lists >anyway and if some FreeBSD members don't want to support alternate >installers then that's up to them. > >Ultimately, I would hope that the installer from company X would get >folded back in to the main distribution if it was a better one, if it >wasn't then chances are no-one would buy that distribution. > >At the moment we are all encouraged to buy all FreeBSD products from WC. >If company X produces a better installer, why shouldn't we put some >money into their coffers by buying their installation in order to fund >the development of a better installer? I agreee 100%. This is a decision which, if handled by an impartial board that wanted to see FreeBSD proliferate, might go the other way. This is why I think that it is important for the board NOT to be the core team but rather to be representative of the whole community -- including users wand vendors other than Walnut Creek/BSDi. --Brett 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?4.2.2.20000312122651.00b1e880>