Re: Sysinst default root login shell

[Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost>]

Johnny Billquist <bqt%softjar.se@localhost> wrote:
> On 2012-04-12 22.08, Matthew Mondor wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:19:33 +0200
> > Johnny Billquist<bqt%softjar.se@localhost>  wrote:
> >
> >> Like I said, I guess I can't be bothered. I've given up. This ain't BSD
> >> anymore, except for the deceptive name. And I've run out of energy
> >> trying to improve the world. I'll just recommend anyone who ask me to
> >> just go and install Linux instead, since it's at least coherent in its
> >> brokenness.
> >
> > (with-gospel-mode
> >
> > Was the "proper" BSD: 4.4BSD, 386BSD, NetBSD 1.4T, NetBSD 4? It probably
> > depends on the context and hardware, I can appreciate old hardware and
> > emulators and archives of old operating systems myself.
> >
> > If NetBSD had not moved with the times, it'd also be using aout, would
> > have bad performance compared to other operating systems, would have no
> > synchronous multi-processor support, no POSIX threads and interfaces
> > support, no way to allow to load non-BSD-licensed code (i.e. an
> > eventual ZFS module), no power management, no support for large disks,
> > unbareably long fsck times, no 64-bit or amd64 support, no DRI, no
> > kauth, no PUFFS, no pkgsrc, no modern testing support, no sysinst, no
> > Xen, a clear-text password database, services all running as root, no
> > SSH, IPv6, LDAP, etc... And it'd also unfortunately be dead by now,
> > require old compilers to build, old hardware to run and old protocols
> > to use...
> >
> > But I now run it on firewalls, servers and "desktop" workstations on
> > i686 and amd64, and am thankful to those who made this constant
> > progress possible.
> > )
> >
> > :)
> 
> Funny you should say that, while a CVS checkout of all of the NetBSD 
> source tree have grown in time from about 20 minutes to about 5 hours on 
> a VAX-8650 as we move from NetBSD 2 to NetBSD 5. Did we really improve 
> performance, or did we only just get faster computers, while the code 
> itself got slower?
> Because I doubt you can claim a 10 time size increase of the source code 
> tree...

You have rather interesting understanding of what BSD is.  Indeed, what
is BSD in year 2012?  Probably most of us in the NetBSD community value
tradition and relatively conservative approach to system development.
However, ain't innovation and adaptation to the new realities BSD?

Yes, our source tree is larger and system is slower on your VAX.  You can
compare SunOS 2.5 and Solaris 11, Linux 2.2 and 3.x or any other system,
which is actively developed, and find the same.  Systems grow features,
their architecture and design evolve together with the industry.

NetBSD evolves.  This is not a conservation project.  The main goal of
the project is not a support for old hardware either.  If you want 4.4BSD
or 2.11BSD, you know where to get it.

-- 
Mindaugas