Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:5094 comp.os.386bsd.misc:1004
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!crcnis1.unl.edu!wupost!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!kaleb
From: kaleb@expo.lcs.mit.edu (Kaleb Keithley)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: A merge of FreeBSD and NetBSD? (Another person's opinion)
Date: 13 Sep 93 12:42:44 GMT
Organization: X Consortium, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Lines: 49
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <kaleb.747924164@kanga.x.org>
References: <MYCROFT.93Sep11213749@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <haley.747858702@husc8> <kaleb.747863404@kanga.x.org> <33840@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kanga.x.org
torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes:
>In response to what I wrote:
>>What this all boils down to is, it's way too early to talk about merging the
>>varieties of <xxx>BSD. Or maybe you think the world would be a better place
>>if we could go down to the CheChryForVolksRenVolvFiatToyDatHon dealer and
>>buy a homogenousmobile?
>Actually, the latter might well be true. People like to talk about how
>those outside the computing field work woth modular, interchangeable
>parts (`stand on each other's shoulders') while those in computing work
>with against each other (`stand on each other's toes'). This simply is
>not true. Just try buying a replacement window crank handle for your
>car---assuming it has a crank handle. ...
Ah, the old "Don't just do something, stand there!" argument, i.e. we
can't move forward because we might leave someone behind. To continue
with your crankhandle analogy, the fact that you even need to buy a
replacement connotes opportunities for competitors to produce better
products; that presumably won't break or will be better in some other
tangible way. Knowing that brand X is inferior to brand Y will probably
affect your future "purchase" decisions.
(BTW, I'd like to know in which industries you think competitors really
are cooperating? Excluding those who must because of government mandate,
e.g. the phone companies; from where I stand I see very few!)
>We get in trouble when the competition/cooperation ratio gets too
>seriously out of balance. Too much competition leads to confusion and
>incompatibility;
In the short term perhaps. In the long run everything works itself out.
("In the long run we're all dead." John Maynard Keynes) To make a trite
analogy, you've got to break some eggs to make a cake. A little short
term confusion is eminently worth it if you get a better product out at
the end.
>too little leads to inflexible, insufficient, and/or
>over-expensive systems.
As the great Professor Spooner may once have said: "Vuja de!" And just how
do you think we've reached the point we're at?
>The decisions people make as to how much
>competition is `right' are partly a matter of taste, and there is
>certainly a workable continuum.
It all comes back to tastes (and preferences). Sounds like an economist at
heart. :-)