Re: Two NetBSDs: from Desktop NetBSD needs your help

["Pouya D. Tafti" <p.d.tafti%gmail.com@localhost>]

On 2009-02-07, der Mouse <mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost> wrote:
> Prompted by smb's response to ad's note about "Desktop NetBSD"....
>
>  I'm actually starting to notice a fundamental divide here.  There seem
>  to be two groups of people (I'm painting with a broad brush here; the
>  boundaries are not as sharp as I'm making them sound, but I think this
>  characterization is useful enough to think about).  One group uses
>  "modern" machines (i386, ia64, amd64), sees disk, RAM, and CPU cycles
>  as cheap, and wants a "desktop experience", preferably one that looks
>  as much like the Windows/Mac/Linux world as possible.  The other group
>  uses other ports (sandpoint, vax, shark, pmax, the list is long), sees
>  CPU cycles, RAM, sometimes even disk space as scarce resources, and is
>  perfectly happy with a command line (or occasionally, as in embedded
>  systems, no UI at all).  Most of the conflicts I've seen within the
>  project, recently, are between these two camps.  Perhaps we need
>  another split?  It would certainly cut down on those conflicts and keep
>  each group happier, letting them have what they want without constantly
>  struggling with the other.

As a desktop user running NetBSD on "modern" (amd64) hardware, I would
find such a split unfortunate.  If I wanted a Linux-like user
experience, I would run Linux.  The reason I turned to NetBSD was its
clean and light design, which I think is to a large part due to the
constraints imposed by its multi-architecture and multi-purpose
nature.  The main area in which I would wish to see improvements is
not desktop experience but drivers and hardware support.

For a while now, NetBSD has been my last refuge against the seemingly
overwhelming tide of bloatware and GUI-centric design.  If NetBSD (or
its "modern-hardware" branch) was to become another Linux clone, I
wouldn't know where to turn next.

Best wishes,
Pouya Tafti