Quote:
Originally Posted by Oko
While I concur that some of your logic here is correct it also contains some logical flows.
|
Fallacies: logical flow is something else, having to do with organizational construction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oko
First one is that I am not aware that NetBSD project is for developers only unlike OpenBSD which publicly states that as one of its principals.
|
So there is a couple of things going on here. First is an understanding of Free Software as a commons and the effects of that on democracy within individual communities and the commons more broadly. I actually do work in this area; while I won't flood the forums with a laundry list of social science readings, suffice it to say these things are much more difficult to understand and complex than would seem likely by those who don't study the matter. So this is a question of governance: it turns out that even when projects claim to be community led, what community? Who is in it? What defines it? How does one move into out out of it? And to complicate matters further, different scholars have slightly different definitions which leads to different answers to all those questions (and more).
What we really see is conflicting modes of governance, and
none of those modes actually account for the public at large. In my opinion they need not be accounted for. So OpenBSD stating that up front is rather redundant: you either make the position clear or you engage in cognitive dissonance. And either is fine. We certainly don't expect our software developers to also have Ph.D. level understanding of sociology, anthropology, and STS literatures. Nor should we.
The second thing addresses Julio's post which you've succinctly summarized:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oko
Apart of the semantics the fact that Amiga developer might not be compelled to do any work after her/his favorite port is officially dropped that might also translate into 10 more capable ARM or AMD developers who are now sitting on the sidelines due to constrains imposed on the project by supporting hardware with serious technical limitations like Amiga or Atari.
|
I'm sorry but I just don't buy this argument. These things aren't so well explained monocausally. If that is really a blocker then there are most certainly other factors at play here. I'm not a NetBSD developer (though I know many high-up NetBSD people because they're either friends of mine or friends of friends) so it would only be speculation as to what those things are so I won't speculate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oko
This might be very well how many core NetBSD developers think. If that is the case NetBSD should be pronounced Archaeological OS. As such it might be very interesting to me when I want to fire my old Atari 1000 but has no relevance for my day job.
|
Something not being relevant to you does not an "archaeological OS" make. Being able to surf the web with Firefox and play games on Steam does not a "modern OS" make. See the distinction?
You clearly do not know the extent to which NetBSD is used. You'd be shocked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oko
This argument is frequently invoked by OpenBSD developers when somebody is trying to argue against some legacy ports (most recently Sparc). The major fallacy of your argument in my point of view is that unlike OpenBSD, NetBSD folks are actually doing very little native builds.
|
I said they would do better if they did native builds but that is their choice to make. It doesn't disqualify bugs from being found though. Just not as many. And maybe not the most severe ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oko
As a member of inner OpenBSD circle you know all too well that no platform can be adapted as official platform until at least two physical machines of that type are not available to developers one of which has to be located in the famous Theo's rack.
|
I have no idea from where you obtained this information. It's straight up wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oko
Are there any images of NetBSD rack that I am not familiar with with machines in all 56 or so different architectures NetBSD is officially supporting?
|
No. Your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oko
For some of those architectures actual physical machines have never been built IIRC.
|
Again, and?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oko
Even with current fairly reasonable policies we saw two recent forks of OpenBSD (defunct AreieBSD and Bitrig).
|
Aerie is not new nor is it defunct. And you don't understand why either happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oko
No it is not. I use ZFS to make living and if I can't get it from NetBSD I will get it from somewhere else. Again you are using your OpenBSD mantra "OS by developers for developers and everyone else is just for good ride". NetBSD is officially not like that and some people would argue that was the main point of contention between Theo and the rest of core when he forked OpenBSD.
|
No no. You totally misunderstand. If the NetBSD project decides it wants to have an in-progress (or stalled, or dead) port of ZFS in their tree then it is a sad day for you and they will have it. See the point about governance earlier in this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oko
I see no reason for vocabulary of threats. I am not afraid of you or anybody else for that matter. I have been supporting OpenBSD financially for a while like many people who frequent this forum arguably with small but reoccurring donations. It is a tool that I use at work. It is a tool that I like using, but it is a tool, no more no less. I would be happy to support NetBSD and I started this thread being a UNIX lover. At this point I personally see no peace of NetBSD worth of my support. What I am afraid is that my opinion is not isolated.
|
It was an imploration to not respond without thinking.
Though you do disqualify yourself from relevancy with your penultimate sentence.