Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!yarrina.connect.com.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!news.internetMCI.com!darwin.sura.net!news.er.usgs.gov!stc06.ctd.ornl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!gw1.att.com!nntpa!not-for-mail From: dyson@inuxs.inh.att.com (John S. Dyson) Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD Message-ID: <DJ2JEp.7Ky@nntpa.cb.att.com> Sender: news@nntpa.cb.att.com (Netnews Administration) Nntp-Posting-Host: inuxs.inh.att.com Organization: AT&T References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <49smvs$8gd@josie.abo.fi> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 15:37:36 GMT Lines: 90 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:29969 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10211 comp.unix.advocacy:12043 In article <49smvs$8gd@josie.abo.fi>, Mats Andtbacka <mandtbac@abo.fi> wrote: >Robert Sanders, in <87rayn8ion.fsf@interbev.mindspring.com>: >>On 2 Dec 1995 10:52:32 GMT, nickkral@parker.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Nick Kralevich) said: > >[...] >>FreeBSD makes the latest sources available via SUP. No, I personally >>can't check things out of the CVS tree. I don't know of any single >>CVS tree that defines the Linux kernel (or userland, for that matter). > >As far as Linux is "defined" at all, it's in the kernel source trees >on ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/OS/Linux/PEOPLE/Linus/v1.$VERSION >where $VERSION is in [0-3]; 3, at the moment. New patches come out >whenever Linus releases them, which can be daily to biweekly. > On FreeBSD, it is almost guaranteed to be daily -- it is automatic. No single developer makes such a decision -- you get to see the stuff daily, warts and all. > >That's probably as close to the development of Linux as most people >care to get; not all of the development kernels even compile, as >they're released on that site. Probably if you wanted to get much more >up-to-date you'd have to start emailing the individual developers for >whatever patches they haven't submitted to Linus yet. > But what happens if I want to participate as much as I do on FreeBSD? it appears that the development is kept from the user population... Hmmm... > >Am I correct to think that the FreeBSD "equivalent", this CVS or >whatever you called it, can't be _read_ except by a small core team? >Whatever for? Keeping people from making their own changes and writing >to it I can see, but...? > Well core team is a misnomer -- and as I have said in other postings, the problems are logistical and perhaps legal -- regarding possible mis-commits. Since the development team .NE. host owner, there are some potential problems with this. Also, there is the logistical issue of how to move the huge tree. On FreeBSD the CVS tree is not just the kernel, but the WHOLE thing... > >Actually, if I wanted to nitpick, not _every_ Linux kernel change >should go to Linus; for example, the ext2fs is maintained by Remy >Card, so patches to it should be sent to him. But yes, you're >essentially right. > That means that he has full and exclusive control, perhaps like a benevolent king. Sure hope that he stays that way. Note that on FreeBSD, someone who would have developed such an important part of the OS, would more than likely have direct CVS commit access. > >Out of interest, what happens if I develop something completely new >for FreeBSD, some driver never seen before; with Linux, I could just >proclaim myself its developer/maintainer, send it to Linus and hope >it gets into the kernel. Who approves new stuff into FreeBSD? > It is a complicated question, but rather than having to convince 1 out of 1 person on Linux -- on FreeBSD you have to convice 1 out of 10 or so kernel people to champion your kernel change. It is almost always reviewed, and usually it is accepted. You see, FreeBSD is not meant to be 'owned' by anyone in particular, and the FreeBSD maintainers (including core team) are developers AND caretakers. We do have much open discussion on the mailing lists when conflicts arise -- I think that one of the reasons that there have been comments about the adversity on *BSD, because we are so open. > >It probably isn't; in the case that Linus should lose access or maybe >just get himself a life, it's probably more closed, since he could >prove a difficult man to replace. But you'd have to be mildly daft to >consider either one "closed" when compared to most commercial >offerings. > This whole thread (as I remember) started with someone accusing FreeBSD as having a closed development. You-too arguments are not valid, but I think that this is a case of glass-houses :-). I know that my comments have been kinda strong, (and one was incorrect), but sometimes you have to try pretty hard to maintain your reputation -- and stop the rumor or innuendo; It can become "the truth". (Remember when it was "the truth" that Linux was faster than FreeBSD -- I actually started working with Linux to find out why -- and it simply was NOT true... I wanted to make FreeBSD faster, and it already was in many if not most ways :-) ). Bottom line, I think in this thread we have shown that FreeBSD is at least as open as Linux, and I essentially agree that it is folly to beg the question any farther. John dyson@freebsd.org