At 08:27 AM 11/30/1999 +0100, Martin Horcicka wrote:
>the thing I've never understood is why you are developing three BSD

"You."  The great BSD central commitee?
>systems separately - well, they are not too separate because if one
>system implements a thing the other two will probably port it.
>
>Wouldn't it be better to join the projects together and this way to more
>effectively use your time, skills and energy?
>
>Please, don't lapidate me - I'd just like to know the reasons.
>
>Martin
>
>P.S. I'm not member of this lists, so please answer directly to me.
>
>Sorry for cross-list message.

Well, there is one Windows.  Monopolistic, no innovation, etc.

There are about 12 leading Unixes.  They each have different
features and strengths.  There are 3 BSD OpenSource Unix-alikes
and I don't know how many Linux distributions, also Open Source.

What's good about OSS?  Well, ideas can easily travel from one
group to another.  A better swapping system comes along in NetBSD
and in fairly short order, it's running on the other BSDs.  And
that's okay.

I don't have a lot of tolerance for the usually Press Created "wars
between the OSs".  If someone's running Linux, at least they are
running what I have been roughly calling Unix.  ls, partitions and
basically the Philosophy of Unix - the toolkit and layered approach
to problem solving.

So don't think of it as three BSD's battling each other as much
as 3 complementary versions, each goading the others to get better.

This is what healthy competition is in the Open Source community.


Troll answer (recalling 2am):
Big troll question I'm sure.  Probably sent my MS or those Linux
bastards :) to distract everyone from their jobs.

If so the answer is that they really are ONE BSD effort, but
broken up to keep the Internation Justice Department (a tool of
the UN) from recognizing the monopoly.  It's all actually
controlled by Bob Young/Bill Gates, working in consort to
create the idea of competition against Microsoft.  Ever see Bob
and Bill in the same place?  In bikinis, playing bagpipes?  I
thought not.   ;=)

later.

chuck