Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!xmission!u.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: 4.4-lite? Date: 30 Jul 1994 07:57:56 GMT Organization: Weber State University, Ogden, UT Lines: 82 Message-ID: <31d164$r2c@u.cc.utah.edu> References: <MYCROFT.94Jul24185950@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <CtIB1L.9yC@boulder.parcplace.com> <CTILBURG.94Jul28121153@occs.cs.oberlin.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.weber.edu In article <CTILBURG.94Jul28121153@occs.cs.oberlin.edu> ctilburg@cs.oberlin.edu (Chuck Van Tilburg) writes: ] So my proposition is: NetBSD and FreeBSD should merge. *BSD* UNITE! I ] understand that there are fundemental differences in legal details, fears, ] personalities, etc. I just don't see why the problem is intractable. There ] is so much to gain in a concerted effort... We aren't children... United we ] stand, divided we just give commercial efforts more ammunition... This has been discussed to death before. Despite the fact that this will probably get me killed, I will be 100% blunt, although I will stop short of naming names. Skip this article now if you are already pissed off. I mean it, I won't discuss this thing further, and if you are already formulating some caustic reply, let it go. I can probably out-post you anyway. Check the traffic statistics if you don't believe me. I will address the commercial issue first by dismissing it; BSD is and always has been a research project, and with few exceptions, there has not been commercial intent (Mt. XINU, BSDI, etc.). Therefore it is neither accurate nor relevant to make the anti-commercial appeal. It *is* incendiary to the fragile bridges and neutral zones being built between the public BSD community and commercial enterprises. This issue deals *only* with the public BSD community. What follows is largely my opinion, although that is based on long observation. There is no possible way a non-forced unification can occur, simply because the incentive to merge is outweighed by the personal benefits to the people opposing a merge either through their actions or through their refusal of action. This is totally and completely a personality issue; certain persons in both camps wish to maintain total editorial control, on the basis that their non-impartial views of their own work. The lines of demarcation on the most volatile issues are clearly made on the basis of one or more members of each camp feeling that they "own" a piece of the code, release, architecture, production, or design process. Arguing for group gains will fall on deaf ears, simply because of the fact that some people benefit personally from a split continuing to exist. They are acting in their own self interest, and simply have no incentive to cooperate. As a manager in a business, I can say "you *will* work with Fred". The implied threat is obvious: if you don't work with Fred, well, I can find a replacement who will. The decision to be made by you is whether you are being paid enough total for both your effort *and* to put up with Fred. It is simply impossible for a volunteer effort to operate on the same basis, unless there is a central focal point -- for instance, a "BSD Consortium", as has been proposed by, among others, Robert Withrow (perhaps the most vocal supporter), that can arbitrate between individuals the was a manager might do in a business. The main obstacle, that is, that the creation of a controlling BSD entity provided a single legal choke-point allowing any BSD effort to be economically quashed by a third party (it's too expensive to enforce an order on a multitude of individuals), is, I think, resolved in the settlement of the UCB suit. What remains to be seen is whether the "personalities" are sufficiently persuasive to prevent the formation of such an entity by members of both groups *without their consent*, and whether, if left alone, both groups would have sufficient mass to continue to be able to exist seperately from the newly formed main body. If so, then the attempt will have failed, so the probably of this outcome must be considered in determining whether or not an attempt would achieve its goal... or simply add to the problem. Lest you think this a "NetBSD/FreeBSD thing", I think it should be clearly noted that they are *not* the only factions. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.