The Future of NetBSD 407
ErisCalmsme writes "In this email Charles Hannum (one of the founders of NetBSD) tells us that 'The NetBSD Project has stagnated to the point of irrelevance. It has gotten to the point that being associated with the project is often more of a liability than an asset. I will attempt to explain how this happened, what the current state of affairs is, and what needs to be done to attempt to fix the situation.' What will happen to NetBSD?"
one more brick in the wall (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope NetBSD survives (Score:3, Insightful)
He may be right... (Score:4, Insightful)
He may be right that NetBSD has its problems, but it's unfair to say that any software project doesn't. Also, I still believe NetBSD was/is a good project, and while BSD sometimes get the short end of the stick when it comes to reputation, we owe a lot to the work that went in to those systems. Times change...new systems come, and old systems go. NetBSD still has quite a way left to go before its done, but when it is I will remember it fondly.
A Sad Day? Or maybe a new start? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is simple, I've been a long time linux supporter, user, and contributor. Not one of these slashdot citizens that everytime a new "feature" of Windows version "X" is leaked, go and bitch about installing "Linux distro flavor of the month" on there machine and never use windows again. Then turn around and get the new version of Windows "X".
With that said, this news is both sad, and slightly hopeful for me. As much as I love Linux. I've had a soft spot for NetBSD. Mostly because it can run on anything, really portable and good for embed, applications were Linux is just to heavy. Also for securiy, its one of the best.
I'm also hopeful. NetBSD is a niche' OS, and one hell of a good one. Maybe the light of this could help get people to turn the project around. I for one and downloading the entire source tree as I type. For one, so i havee a virgin copy of release 4.0 and the latest CVS, and for two... to see if maybe i could help out with something. If only in a small way.
Even if I don't plan on using NetBSD on my desktop, which is SuSE 10.1 btw, I beleive it still as much to do in the niche applications, because oif we let niche OSes fail. And one OS expands to do everything, we all lose, and end up in another Microsoft Windows style mess.
Thats my 2 cents for the night.
How many BSDs do we need? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the NetBSD folks have done some great work in the past, and it deserves to be remembered, but maybe it's best that they apply their efforts to some more relevant projects, such as another BSD, or better yet, Linux, which has been constantly lagging behind OpenBSD in security and the like.
Diversity is a powerful part of the FOSS model, however it can also dilute things by spreading resources to thin. Thanks for your hard work guys -- lets move on to the next challenge!
Re:Doesn't seem right (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to love NetBSD. The package management is indeed great. BUT :
I really wanted to stick to NetBSD, but after 1 year trying to have it functionnal, I installed linux, and this day, all my problems were gone.
I'm afraid that the great thing in NetBSD - which is multiple platforms support - will soon be irrelevant, since linux already supports all the currently-used architectures.
In all case, I hope NetBSD will survive and become more usable. But as said, it needs a lot of work.
Leadership (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO leadership of a project is very important because leaders always have a vision and the drive to force this vision become true. There's no guaranty that a leader will be successful with his vision but definitely comities always will fail they never have a single vision and never can agree to force a single vision become true. So whenever a project is lead by a comity stagnation is not far off.
Yet leadership does not mean dictatorship as often is done by many OSS project leaders. Dictators will equally bring a project down as do comities. There's unfortunately no clear distinction when a leader becomes a dictator as many times good leaders are just lucky avoiding the path to dictatorship by sheer luck.
O. Wyss
Re:Mergers and Acquisition (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How many BSDs do we need? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How many BSDs do we need? (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny that you mention Linux in there... as if there AREN'T hundreds of different and somewhat incompatible Linux distros. Why do we need so many of them? If we all would just settle on Slackware, the ONE TRUE DISTRO, everything would be perfect.
I don't think so at all. First, similarities between the BSDs mean many developers contribute to several different projects. It also means work done on one is rather easy to port to another. If more distros can bring in just a few more developers, then the net result is a positive.
Besides, OSS is pretty well self-regulating. When developers find that the OS they're working on is getting behind the times, either they port the relevant code from another, or they jump ship to one that actually does what they need. Many different OSS projects have been abandoned, consolidated, or had branches die and developers return.
Sometimes one size doesn't fit all, and a fork can have benefits for both.
A Call to Arms (Score:2, Insightful)
For my part, I submit bug reports for issues, and occasionally hack on infrastructure and documentation, as well as advocate and assist in #netbsd (irc.freenode.net). I need to improve on the "hacking" aspect, insofar as finishing my jobs and getting work out there, but it's a start. And it's not that difficult. I encourage anybody who uses it to do the same, and those that don't currently use it, give it a try. It's solid, capable, and speedy. It's not perfect, but with people contributing, it'll get even better. I won't be able to personally get a journalling filesystem in it (for example), but with support and the right pressure, we'll hopefully get what we need.
I believe it was the King addressing Alice who said to her (regarding her retelling of events): Start at the beginning, continue to the end, then stop.
This applies to our participation with NetBSD, or any FOSS project. In the case of NetBSD (or Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD), nobody will be thinking of the "end", and hopes that their favourite OS will just continue... the key is "start at the beginning", and the key part of that is start.
-yb
Re:How many BSDs do we need? (Score:3, Insightful)
But yes, I think anyone working on the NetBSD kernel is wasting thier time, along with DragonflyBSD. Lots of NetBSD code will still be around in other projects, so it's certainly not useless, but it'd be better to work on a more actively maintained OS, imho.
Re:Nature doing what it does best... (Score:2, Insightful)
- Arctic beech, grows very slowly and close to the ground so snowfall doesn't break limbs
- Most species specific parasites
- and NetBSD, running a firewall on your toaster
However broad generalists often survive after specialists have become extinct, most rodents are not particularly good at any one role but can muddle on in many roles and breed quickly enough that the loss of a living for 20% of the population doesn't result in extermination of the species.I suppose given the forum, Windows is akin to Tribbles [wikipedia.org] pretty much useless but cute/useable enough that people are loath to phone the exterminater.
I feel a humourous article on OS/evolution parallels comming on, but I'm too busy/lazy to write it.
Re:one more brick in the wall (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:5, Insightful)
If you'd read the email log more closely, you'd notice that Charles Hannum one of those who was involved in the removal of de Raadt's commit privileges, but then tried to come up with a workable way for Theo to continue working on the project. The whole story has never come out, as the NetBSD core group kept very quiet about what the motivation for removing de Raadt's commit privileges were. However what is not in doubt is that Theo's attitude on the NetBSD mailing lists was abusive towards anyone who he felt was not as technically competent or as well informed as him. This was annoying fellow developers and alienating potential users. Theo was asked to tone down his attitude, or at least ignore postings that he would otherwise have posted inflammatory replies to. He didn't, and my assumption is that the core group removed the commit privileges to distant the "official" project from Theo's shitty attitude. Theo obviously resented this, but continued to badmouth people until he finally forked NetBSD to create OpenBSD - a sandpit where he could fuck people off to his hearts content.
Now it seems Charles Hannum is pissed at someone, and has decided to belittle the work of many current NetBSD developers by cross posting his flame to the Free, Net and Open mailing lists. My opinion for what it's worth? The NetBSD Foundation appears to be dominated by Wasabi personnel, and as a result the decisions it takes may be in the interests of Wasabi commercial interests rather than Charles Hannums. However, there is good work going on in the NetBSD project, and all Hannum's post will do is make the Linux/anti-BSD zealots shriller.
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds bleak (Score:5, Insightful)
If the NetBSD project dies, it will be an interesting to watch from a mad scientists/vivisectionist viewpoint.
One of the important things about free/open source software is that it's not tied to an organization. This is very important in the survival of software.
I'd like to put for the following conjecture:
For example, provided that nothing fundamental to the Linux kernel violates patents, I'd suggest that the Linux kernel is immortal. (1) It is complex, but has a huge number of users; (2) While BSD would be the most logical move (possibly a BSD distribution using the BSD kernel with GNU tools?), it would require a modest amount of retraining for things like networking and system administration. (3) So far as we know there are no credible assertions of IP violations in the Linux kernel.
NetBSD, I'd suggest, is a candidate for extinction under this conjecture.
(1) It is complex relative to the number of users: see the article's discussion of problems with threading and multiple processors. Of the three "big" BSD distros, it has by far the fewest numbers of users.
(2) It is probable that mostof its users can switch to a different BSD with very little trouble. NetBSD's reputation is that it is the most portable of the BSDs, not the most featureful. Therefore if you can switch, it should be easy. The only group that would drive further maintenance would be people who run NetBSD on very old computers not supported by other operating systems.
(3) Patent problems: none known at this time.
BSD vs GPL (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no absolute freedom, that is called anarchy. There must be rules in place to protect freedom for everyone. In creating rules, one has to accept reasonable limits of specific freedoms to balance and maintain everyones freedom. The GPL limits your specific freedom, this is true, while it protects your overall freedom in limiting what others can do with your handy work.
As is evident in the BSD line of systems, BIG corporations are taking your code, making good money, and giving back close to nothing. OpenBSD is dying even though they maintain ssh. NetBSD is dying even though it used to be very popular with the enbedded crowd. FreeBSD will die even though Apple used it as a base.
Linux survives because these entities can't take and forget to give back. Linux is free for all to use both as in beer and freedom. Some distributions may not be, and IMHO this is wrong, but exampled by CentOS, those still have enforced freedom. Your freedom to access GPL code modified by RedHat is protected by the GPL. Make no mistake, if Redhat were BSD, there would be no CentOS.
So every time a *BSD project dies, it is one more nail in the coffin of the BSD side of the GPL/BSD debate.
Re:one more brick in the wall (Score:3, Insightful)
Like him or not, TdR's leadership is the meta-driver for OpenBSD.
Re:Sounds bleak (Score:2, Insightful)
Decoupling kernel and distribution (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe the largest procedural advatage Linux have over the BSD's is the decoupling of the kernel development from the os-distribution. The skills needed for the two are very different. Like all decoupling, it allows people to experiment with one, without affecting the other. And since the end-user product is the os-distribution, it allowed commercial interests to have their own unique distributions, without permanent forking of the kernel.
The bad luck of the free BSD's is that they all originate from the 386BSD distribution, which was bundled in the old Unix tradition.
Re:Sounds bleak (Score:2, Insightful)
Just take a look at the ID's of people posting. I thought that IDs 300000 where dead:
rsidd (6328)
BluBrick (1924)
hey! (33014)
chaoskitty (11449)
DavidpFitz (136265)
Snap E Tom (128447)
zensonic (82242)
StarKruzr (74642)
QuantumFTL (197300)
evilviper (135110)
(etc).
I think this is the thread where I have seen the biggest quantity of low id posts =o).
Seems Old guys come out of their chairs to defend their lawn =oP
Why I don't use NetBSD (Score:5, Insightful)
If I want to be secure I run OpenBSD, if I like the "UNIX" model over the "LINUX" way of grokking things I'll run FreeBSD. In the past NetBSD's mantra was portability. I don't think that's a big enough selling point.
Differentiation is what sells (it seems). NetBSD needs to be something the others are not doing.
I hope it survives and hope that the people involved are mature enough not to let their EGO's get in the way.
In some ways they have a GOLDEN opportunity. NetBSD is far enough along that they don't have to start from scratch, but small enough (organization wise) to allow them to possibly do something that LINUX and FreeBSD are too big to handle.
I don't know what that is..but I hope it's something cool!
Re:one more brick in the wall (Score:1, Insightful)
I hate his guts, but will be the first to concede that he's an excellent engineer with a damned fine OS.
*BSDers seem to miss the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Too elitist (Score:3, Insightful)
I used Net casually in old machines and was always satisifed.
Unfortunately the RTFA factor in NetBSD community is too strong. You're expected to know everything and if you don't, you're simply ignored. I've tried really hard to install Net in my Powerbook 3400c; I spent days burning CDs, studying manuals, fiddling with Open Firmware and reading mailing lists. I finally gave up and sent a detailed email about what I tried and what errors I received. The message was unanimously ignored in netbsd-users. I ended up installing good ol' Debian --- Debian MLs are not exactly forgiving, but at least people help you.
Re:BSD vs GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
No, absolute freedom is the free range of choice to do what you want. That includes anarchy, or it might be something else. It's whatever you choose. The GPL limits that range of choice and is therefore inherently less free than the BSD license. People like Stallman really should stop trying to equate "freedom" with the GPL, because the GPL isn't preserving freedom other than the right to obtain source code. The BSD license gives you source code as well as the ability to do absolutely whatever you want with it. That's freedom.
"Limiting what others can do" with my handy work is the opposite of freedom. True freedom is letting the code out into the world as totally free contribution to public knowledge and culture that anyone in society can use and benefit from, be it a homebrew hacker or a corporation.
Lots of Linux corporations do the same thing.
Maybe you missed it, but BSD is surviving just fine as well. Apple is the biggest UNIX vendor and relies on FreeBSD. Linux survives not because of the reason you state but because it managed to gain a foothold during the BSD lawsuit crisis, giving it momentum. There's nothing about the GPL that accelerates development over the BSD license. In either case, you can access the same source code repositories. But unlike the GPL, the BSD license doesn't control your actions and restrict your freedom once you have that source code.
Or fodder for anti-BSD trolls such as yourself. NetBSD is dying due to leadership issues, not the BSD license.
Re:Doesn't seem right (Score:4, Insightful)
in quite active development.
I was at a recent Linux Users' group meeting and a fellow there pointed out that NetBSD counts every variation of architecture as a different platform, where as Linux only counts major changes in architecure as a new platform. If you count the platforms in the same manner, then Linux is ahead...and far ahead.
But a biggest question is how much this portability really matters to a lot of people. I got rid of my Sun3 a couple of years ago, it was my last NetBSD machine. Sure, it's nice to have an OS that will work on old hardware such as this but so what? What is there to draw new developers and new energy to the project?
I don't think that NetBSD will 'die', but it could become so obscure that the vast majority of the planet doesn't know of it's existance. If maintenance dwindles to the point where a major security hole is discovered and not fixed, then there will be a sharp drop in the number of users.
As much as I find Theo DeRaadt an frustrating and conceited person, he's brought a lot of vitality to OpenBSD, enough so that it keeps going strong in spite of his disenfranchisement of many people. I think the only reason why some people stay with NetBSD is their strong hatred of Theo.
Re:OpenBSD vs NetBSD vs Linux (Score:1, Insightful)
The hypocrasy in the guys missive, is that he was central to the politics when TdR was booted.
He also used the right word. Meritocracy. Thats how the world should work, but we all know that politics always seem to outgun talent. It's a shame. How many of us work for lame brain managers who use AOL and couldn't swap a board out in their PC yet are somehow entrusted with setting policy or strategy for millions of pounds worth of IT budget.
This speaks more about humans than technology. The lesson to learn is the people who "understand more"/"have talent" need to be working under a self sustaining framework. Linux has this framework, and the right people. And people like Shuttleworth accelerate it from time to time and they understand the importance of the right governance and contributing back/upstream.
NetBSD seems to have failed because of its own internal politics rather than technical ability. Its big of the guy to admit he was part of it, along with the TNF.
Re:Mergers and Acquisition (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds bleak (Score:3, Insightful)
DragonFly is very interesting. I almost wish I had jumped on that bandwagon.
As for the comments above that FreeBSD is general purpose, I have to disagree. FreeBSD is a server OS. They are actively working on getting niagra style sun boxes working. Anyone who's taken an operating systems course in college knows that scheduling for a 2 cpu system is quite different than a 32 way. I just don't think we'll ever see 2-4 way cpu performance with FreeBSD. The scheduler needs repair or replacement. In fact, there should be different code for a ton of cpus vs a few.
From my perspective, NetBSD and FreeBSD have some serious problems to overcome. I don't see a lot of names on the FreeBSD mailing lists like I used to. There are many new commiters taking over sections of the kernel. Its almost like a mass exodus from the project is happening. Maybe the developers are just tired. I think DragonFly and OpenBSD are the innovators right now. I urge people to contribute to OpenBSD. They need the money and they are doing the real work on wireless, and many other technologies.
I've been struggling with the idea of a "core" in my project. I think this article might have talked me out of it.
If there are developers with NetBSD and FreeBSD who are unhappy, take a look at the other 3 BSD projects. All of us can use the help. I'm looking for people to work on all parts of the system right now. http://www.midnightbsd.org/ [midnightbsd.org]