On 8/27/07, De Zeurkous <zeurkous@nichten.info> wrote:
> Haai,
>
> On Mon, August 27, 2007 03:29, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 07:54:04PM -0700, Darren Reed wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> And lastly...
> >> Have any of the said vendors contributed back to NetBSD ?
> >> (Or in other words, why should we care about *them* ? >:-)
> >
> > If you really really think that's the right attitude to take, you might
> be happier in a GPL project
>
> Don't confuse an attitude of 'fair is fair' with one of 'no matter what
> the circumstances, you will obey'.
>
> > -- though given our past history with some
> > vendors I can understand the response!  ;-)
>
> It doesn't take full-brunt exposure to the perils of capitalism to be able
> to 'understand the response' (and certainly not when elaboration seems
> deliberately omitted to promote social cohesion).
>
> >
> > From my point of view, one of the things keeping NetBSD alive and
> interesting is that it's readily available to be packaged up and shipped
> in vendor products without all the GPL nonsense.
>
> The main problem being that it often isn't shipped with the /right/
> products. Anyway, if NetBSD runs out of the box on a certain system, why
> should I care for a vendor shipping it unmodified (and no, I don't
> consider vendor-modified versions eligible to carry the name 'NetBSD').
>
> > Generally, I think,
> > NetBSD gets something back from those efforts (certainly we are getting
> quite a bit back right now, in terms of Andy's paid kernel work).  We
> could do better, but there's no point making things harder than they
> need to be,
>
> Now I understand the crude politics of this project. Since the affair
> involving Theo and the eventual split of OpenBSD (YAY for breaking taboos)
> and, more recently, Charles Hannum's 'introspective come-down from a hard
> night of consumption' ((C) matthew sporleder) the attitude described (and,
> to a limited extent, something resembling 'discussed') hasn't changed one
> fscking bit. Keep this arrogant, greasy attitude, and this project will go
> down faster than an ALSA audio driver. I've seen it before, and I'll see
> it again.
>
> If you do not change your attitude towards foreign concepts within the
> forseeable future, I'm going to fork this, merge it with my own Grand
> Project(TM) (which I shall not rant about unless specifically provoked)
> and pwn even NetBSD's architecture completely. Your mind-lock will be your
> defeat. I'd much rather not do that (and evolve NetBSD into some more than
> UNIX instead), but it increasingly seems I have little choice. You have
> been warned.


Thanks for quoting me.  :)
Are you really so passionate about the internal numbering of syscalls
that you would want to fork the entire OS just to number things your
way?  It just seems to me like a very minor thing.  Also, in my
opinion, this thread started out as a pretty benign request to
clean-up some kernel internals and possibly reserve some space for
"private" use.  Could you elaborate on your concerns a little more
clearly?  Was it the word "vendor" that bothered you so much?

Also- how did this thread jump to netbsd-users?