Archived thread 247939 from BSD. Markdown source: BSD/thread_247939_Charles_Hannum_says_NetBSD_is_dead.md
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/2006/08/30/0016.html
Essentially, he lists the problems that have plagued NetBSD into what he calls irrelevance (particularly the interference of the NetBSD Foundation into the Project's affairs). It's a good read, and it's a shame it went that way.
WOW man. Thanx. Nice read.
Ah! I see that the slashdot trolls have landed. How about a thread about Soviet Russia now? :mrgreen:
der_joachim said: Ah! I see that the slashdot trolls have landed. How about a thread about Soviet Russia now? :mrgreen: What do you mean?
der_joachim said: Ah! I see that the slashdot trolls have landed. How about a thread about Soviet Russia now? :mrgreen:Actually, it was on Digg before it was on Slashdot and on several linux/unix/bsd related blogs even before that.
It's not dead, it's stunned.
There is a reason why it is actually good to have strong, almost "figurehead" leaders related to projects. People like Linus and Mark Shuttleworth help get things done and push projects to their conclusions. It sounds to me like NetBSD really is just lacking in good leadership.
atrus123 said: There is a reason why it is actually good to have strong, almost "figurehead" leaders related to projects. People like Linus and Mark Shuttleworth help get things done and push projects to their conclusions. It sounds to me like NetBSD really is just lacking in good leadership. That's what it looks like. I don't know that much about NetBSD, so I'm hardly an expert :).
so, should i give up hope of putting netbsd on my clock radio?
atrus123 said: There is a reason why it is actually good to have strong, almost "figurehead" leaders related to projects. People like Linus and Mark Shuttleworth help get things done and push projects to their conclusions. It sounds to me like NetBSD really is just lacking in good leadership.
FreeBSD doesn't have 'strong leadership' but seems to be fine after all these years.
Click here and scroll down to see a lot of other responses.
Iandefor said: What do you mean?
After a certain number of posts, the same tired old jokes pop up on discussions. One of them is that BSD is dead.
NetBSD might be halting to a dead stop, but BSD itself is far from dead. Dont tell Theo that BSD is dead, hell go on a rant. Sigh.
KingBahamut said: NetBSD might be halting to a dead stop, but BSD itself is far from dead. Dont tell Theo that BSD is dead, hell go on a rant. Sigh.
Since Theo isn't here, allow me to express my deep disgust for every Linux distro that has a monetary backing, uses OpenSSH and won't donate now when OpenBSD is hurting.
Thankfully true friends of the FLOSS community like Mozilla aren't too cheap to help out a project they use code from.
NetBSD's thing was portability, the PC type hardware, while quite cheap and crappy, killed it.
It may not be entirely dead but on a rapidly moving market, it will become a footnote fairly soon.
Yeah it's kinda bad when people use OpenSSH and don't contribute, especially big corporates. Yes the license allows the above but it is not in the spirit of things as far as i'm concerned. Theo has a way of stepping on peoples toes but the way he steers the OpenBSD project has nothing wrong with it. Yes it is slow progress, yes it does not have all the bells & whistle but then again it is the most secure OS out there. i would use it but for me it does not make a good desktop OS currently.
mips said: Yeah it's kinda bad when people use OpenSSH and don't contribute, especially big corporates. Yes the license allows the above but it is not in the spirit of things as far as i'm concerned. Theo has a way of stepping on peoples toes but the way he steers the OpenBSD project has nothing wrong with it. Yes it is slow progress, yes it does not have all the bells & whistle but then again it is the most secure OS out there. i would use it but for me it does not make a good desktop OS currently.
Spirit is not enforceable in the courts. Licenses are.
Someone on /. said, quite perceptively, that OpenSSH and OpenBSD amount to a bait-and-switch, since Theo de Raadt refuses to separate the projects. The cry will go up that OpenSSH is dying because of lack of support....so support it by donating to OpenBSD.
*blink*
It would be a lot easier if they could let people who used OpenSSH donate towards keeping THAT project running, rather than holding the community hostage.
Brunellus said: Spirit is not enforceable in the courts. Licenses are.
100% correct. It's sad though, we don't do what's 'right' but merely what the law requires of us and sometimes it's usually the party with most money and biggest law firm on his side. Fair enough, nobody 'has' to donate to the project.
Brunellus said:
Someone on /. said, quite perceptively, that OpenSSH and OpenBSD amount to a bait-and-switch, since Theo de Raadt refuses to separate the projects. The cry will go up that OpenSSH is dying because of lack of support....so support it by donating to OpenBSD.
*blink*
It would be a lot easier if they could let people who used OpenSSH donate towards keeping THAT project running, rather than holding the community hostage.
Is OpenSSH not part of OpenBSD ? I mean in the sense that it is part of the OS. Coming from the point that BSD development is not the same as a Linux distro where each project is developed seperately and then incorporated into the distro. When you get BSD all the bits and pieces if I can call it that is developed as a single project. If openssh grew out of the openbsd project then why should it not get the funds.
Just another viewpoint and question.
Sorry, double post, forums are timing out here.
Brunellus said: Spirit is not enforceable in the courts. Licenses are.
Someone on /. said, quite perceptively, that OpenSSH and OpenBSD amount to a bait-and-switch, since Theo de Raadt refuses to separate the projects. The cry will go up that OpenSSH is dying because of lack of support....so support it by donating to OpenBSD.
*blink*
It would be a lot easier if they could let people who used OpenSSH donate towards keeping THAT project running, rather than holding the community hostage.
You mean like support Linux, not GNU? Or support Ubuntu, not Linux?
OpenBSD is the project, OpenSSH is part of the project, to make an OS with tools that are as safe as possible, it's not the only part that is used and reused in several instances in several other OS's and in software.
Mozilla didn't have any problems donating, but then again, perhaps Ubuntu and others (except Slackware which although being a struggling project itself has donated) really don't like the competition?
Thank god for Patrick V of Slackware and Mozilla for keeping the true spirit of FLOSS alive.
I'm just waiting for Microsoft to see the opportunity to fork out enough to save it and thereby having an edge when it comes to security compared to any Linux distro.
mips said: Yeah it's kinda bad when people use OpenSSH and don't contribute, especially big corporates. Yes the license allows the above but it is not in the spirit of things as far as i'm concerned. Theo has a way of stepping on peoples toes but the way he steers the OpenBSD project has nothing wrong with it. Yes it is slow progress, yes it does not have all the bells & whistle but then again it is the most secure OS out there. i would use it but for me it does not make a good desktop OS currently.
That is one of the reasons i'm using Ubuntu atm, to see what WOULD make a good desktop OS, i mean, i REALLY like OpenBSD but i prefer it on server side while using something like SuSE, Slackware, FreeBSD or maybe Ubuntu on the desktops.
Unfortunantly my ride started out a bit bumpy with an extremely buggy release and updates that broke X but i have seen worse and since Ubuntu seems like a very nice distro in many other instances i'm still keeping it on my list of potential systems for future implementation. :)
moved to other OS talk
It's all very well to talk about "spirit."
Spirit is irrelevant. If you were worried about spirit, you should have stated your aims explicitly in the license under whose terms you release your software.
Call me ungrateful, or hard, or mean-spirited, but I honestly think the community should grow up and start thinking about things like law, rather than get all upset and talk about fuzzy, indistinct, and undefinable things like "spirit."
I personally wish the OpenBSD and OpenSSH projects all the best in the world; but they're grown-ups like the rest of us, and have to live with the consequences of their license.
I do not think spirit is irrelevant. If we all simply conformed to the laws we would be a bunch of pretty mean people. "Oh, you wan't a donation for the Salvation Army ? Get lost as the law does not require me to donate"
mips said: I do not think spirit is irrelevant. If we all simply conformed to the laws we would be a bunch of pretty mean people. "Oh, you wan't a donation for the Salvation Army ? Get lost as the law does not require me to donate"
What I mean is this:
The "community" stands ready to denounce anything that it perceives to be not "in the spirit" of Linux/Ubuntu/Free Software/peace/happiness/harmony/brotherhood (delete as appropriate). I think that's all well and good. You can believe what you want to believe. But at the end of the day, what counts are the things that you can make happen, not the things that you'd like to believe.
If we relied entirely on 'spirit,' software licensing would be superfluous. Software would be offered in the public domain, the original developer's "intent" would be known, and everyone would happily follow that.
But nothing in such a system prevents exploitation by people who don't share that "spirit" for their own profit. What DOES prevent it is the coercive power of the law--in this case, licensing.
I am not saying that you shouldn't be a nice person, or that you shouldn't do good things of your own accord. But in software as in real life, you cannot expect to go through life expecting that everybody else is going to be nice to you. It's not going to happen. Bottom line: you can't rely on spirit for anything. Force is always reliable, and for us, that force is the force of the law through the license of the software.
Brunellus said: It's all very well to talk about "spirit."
Spirit is irrelevant. If you were worried about spirit, you should have stated your aims explicitly in the license under whose terms you release your software.
Well that is only leading to one thing, less free software, FLOSS works only and i do mean ONLY because people do things to help others or to help themselves.
Call me ungrateful, or hard, or mean-spirited, but I honestly think the community should grow up and start thinking about things like law, rather than get all upset and talk about fuzzy, indistinct, and undefinable things like "spirit."
Call me a bleeding heart but i think that what is good for the developer is good for those who use it, supporting it instead of ignoring them is something that has kept more than one project alive that we all use and benefit from today.
I personally wish the OpenBSD and OpenSSH projects all the best in the world; but they're grown-ups like the rest of us, and have to live with the consequences of their license.
Great, stop using their software and you can ignore the future development of it, in the meantime people like Patrick V who barely has money to stay online and the Mozilla project are carrying it.
Good for you, you can still use it, any security hole will still be patched and you don't have to care.
I'm not saying that anyone HAS to care, i'm just saying that any intelligent distro distributor SHOULD since if it stops being developed, well, what do you know that would suffice? I know of one system, that is in Vista, i don't know of ANY system that is even close that is FLOSS.
Brunellus said: What I mean is this:
The "community" stands ready to denounce anything that it perceives to be not "in the spirit" of Linux/Ubuntu/Free Software/peace/happiness/harmony/brotherhood (delete as appropriate). I think that's all well and good. You can believe what you want to believe. But at the end of the day, what counts are the things that you can make happen, not the things that you'd like to believe.
If we relied entirely on 'spirit,' software licensing would be superfluous. Software would be offered in the public domain, the original developer's "intent" would be known, and everyone would happily follow that.
But nothing in such a system prevents exploitation by people who don't share that "spirit" for their own profit. What DOES prevent it is the coercive power of the law--in this case, licensing.
I am not saying that you shouldn't be a nice person, or that you shouldn't do good things of your own accord. But in software as in real life, you cannot expect to go through life expecting that everybody else is going to be nice to you. It's not going to happen. Bottom line: you can't rely on spirit for anything. Force is always reliable, and for us, that force is the force of the law through the license of the software.
Basically what you are saying is "if you expect to get help when you are hurting and every distro and millions of people are using your work, don't expect it if you are using a free license, the only way to make it is to keep it closed source"
That is real nice and what do i know, may even be true in the long run, but i'm asking you, what are you doing here if that is what you believe?
SoundMachine said: Basically what you are saying is "if you expect to get help when you are hurting and every distro and millions of people are using your work, don't expect it if you are using a free license, the only way to make it is to keep it closed source"
That is real nice and what do i know, may even be true in the long run, but i'm asking you, what are you doing here if that is what you believe? No, that is not what I'm saying at all.
What I am saying is that merely trusting in "spirit," that is to say the voluntary goodwill of other strangers, to keep software free is hopeless. Once upon a time, Microsoft needed a TCP/IP stack. They took a good, free one, available for use under an early BSD license. They complied with the license to the letter, and have not redistributed the source code for that critical component.
Sentimentalists in the community might cry foul. How DARE an EVIL corporation TAKE code which was FREELY-PROVIDED and not give back! They can howl in protest insist that Bill & Steve give back to the community. Bill & Steve shrug: Make us.
What recourse does "the community" have? Without a robust license and legal enforcement for the same, they have no way to compel "evildoers" to comply.
Spirit is all well and good at encouraging people. Let there be spirit everywhere, I say. But spirit has a terrible record at compelling people to do your will, and that is precisely what the free software movement and the GPL is seeking to achieve.
Sentimentality only achieves so much.