Re: Pkg-based base system.

Scott Long <scottl_at_freebsd.org> writes:

> I think that you are missing a key point here.  FreeBSD is an operating
> system.  It is not a kernel with interchangeable userland pieces.  It is
> not designed that way, and frankly that is one of it's strengths.  It is
> an integrated system that has defined pieces in defined locations that
> work together in a defined way.  When one BSD has something that another
> BSD wants, it gets ported and integrated.  I understand that this is
> quite a bit different from the Linux model that you are advocating, but
> not all the world has to follow in the footsteps of Linux.

First off, let me acknowledge that I was expressing a pipe-dream, not
a proposal, partially for the benefit of the Johan, somewhat as a
reaction to PHK, and slightly as a suggestion that the BSDs share more
of their parts and documentation.

Now, I was obviously not advocating the Linux model; Linux only has
one kernel and my pipe dream has defined pieces in defined locations
that work together in a defined way, as you desire.  Like the current
FreeBSD, it allows one to choose between several MTAs, several
firewalls, a couple of CDROM burners, etc.; it just adds "kernel" to
these selections, makes the selection easier, and doesn't force people
who use several BSD OSes to use, document, and maintain several
different versions of "ls", etc.  Another way of looking at it is that
the several BSD OSes share the same non-kernel parts including package
systems and maybe boot scripts, installers, and boot loaders.

> Frankly, it's not a
> contest to be #1.  It's an OS that is interesting to work on and useful
> to use.  If you want a contest, please consider Linux.

The contest, as I see it, is in the advancement in usability, with
non-BSD OSes moving faster ahead than any BSD OS, in the face of
changing needs and standards of use (which may get severe as MSFT and
others get increasing control of communication and format standards
through market forces and patents, which might even stop Linux).  For
the next few years, all of the BSDs will probably have decent niches
where their reliability and performance keep them desireable as long
as they keep up with feature needs.  But I see them falling behind
unnecessarily fast because the several BSD don't cooperate more than
they do.  Sadly, I foresee them falling to essentially nowhere, as
their inability to keep up snowballs.  Joining userland+doc forces
would slow this process and help make a softlanding into an embedded
OS niche where I suspect that NetBSD's kernel is probably most useful
and where Linux is hampered by it's license.