Re: FreeBSD's problems as seen by the BSDForen.de community

Thus "Aryeh M. Friedman" <aryeh.friedman_at_gmail.com> spake on Fri, 11
Jan 2008 10:07:58 -0500:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Erik Trulsson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 02:51:28PM +0100, Timo Schoeler wrote:
> >> Thus Kris Kennaway <kris_at_FreeBSD.org> spake on Fri, 11 Jan 2008
> >> 14:12:25 +0100:
> >>
> >>> Timo Schoeler wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> It will even go into the CVS tree (though probably not into
> >>>>> GENERIC) if the source is clean, style(9)-compliant and
> >>>>> well maintained.
> >>>> It should do with *one* exception: Every other, more
> >>>> important problem (e.g. getting ZFS to v9) is *solved*. If
> >>>> this is the case, import the USB christmas tree device driver
> >>>> and introduce dev.xmastree.lamps.blink as sysctl, absolutely
> >>>> no problem.
> >>>>
> >>>>> But even if it doesn't go into the tree, that's not a big
> >>>>> deal.  For example, for several years I maintained some
> >>>>> patches that improved syscons (kern/15436).  They didn't go
> >>>>> into CVS, but they worked fine for me and a few others.
> >>>> But I bet you would be fine with it in the tree as well as
> >>>> some others, if not all others? If so, why didn't it get into
> >>>> the tree? Maybe because some lower-priority USB christmas
> >>>> device driver was imported instead?
> >>>>
> >>>> This is the crucial point I wanted to show: *Priorities*.
> >>> You are making the incorrect assumption that one developer
> >>> working on e.g. your /dev/uxmas in any way effects the
> >>> development of other "more important" parts of the tree.
> >> No, I didn't. I said that the work is done ineffectively as he's
> >> doing underprioritized stuff. Working on higher prioritized stuff
> >> would be more efficient, and would help the project even more.
> >
> > But he is probably working on high priority stuff.  High priority
> > according to *his* priorities that is, not your priorities.
> 
> And a different reward system would encourage a more socially
> responible approach on both sides.

Wrong.

> >> Given the assumption that the developer is able to do both, the
> >> Xmas tree as well as importing ZFS v9 into the tree.
> >>
> >> (I don't see the point that when somebody is really *capable* of
> >> doing both things, why should (s)he do the 'lower priority'
> >> thing. If you are at the olympic stadium and you're the best
> >> sprinter, you wouldn't join the marathon...!)
> >
> > Because he thinks the 'lower priority' thing is more fun, and
> > doesn't care at all about the stuff that you happen to think should
> > be high priority.
> 
> The requirement that the work must be "fun" is a fatal flaw with FOSS
> once the projects actually start getting used by real people to do
> real work...

Partly correct. The problem is some people's attitude on this.

Given that your capitalistic approach doesn't work (it never did, and
it never will; the later people understand this, the more damage will
have happened to this planet), and given your statement the line above:

Why not use an evolutionary way of development?

For FreeBSD this would mean to at least *try* to go 'back to the
roots' (attitude!) and hunt for higher effectiveness.

For the software world this would mean to fork (again) or to use an
already existing fork, or to completely switch to another 'species' and
let FreeBSD alone, maybe die, maybe decay, maybe not.

Time will tell as time is your evolutionary friend.

EOD

> like I said else where do you really want the DoD run by
> people who think war is "fun".

They do think so, ask any human being outside the US...

> - --
> Aryeh M. Friedman


Timo