by homeworld.cygnus.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 1998 19:03:17 -0000
          by smtp05.wxs.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6)  with ESMTP
          id AAA305E; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 19:02:42 +0100
Content-Length: 2213
Message-ID: <XFMail.981126200736.asmodai@wxs.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <365D9654.D15B4217@softweyr.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 20:07:36 +0100 (CET)
Organization: Ninth Circle Enterprises
From: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl>
To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>
Subject: Re: Merging Net/Free/Open-BSD together against Linux
Cc: advocacy@openbsd.org,
	 FreeBSD advocacy list <FreeBSD-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG>
	, netbsd-advocacy@NetBSD.ORG,
	 "J. Joseph Max Katz" <jkatz@cpio.net>
	, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>

On 26-Nov-98 Wes Peters wrote:
> Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>> 
>> I'd go further in saying that, for all intents and purposes, it's hard
>> enough to be considered essentially impossible.  Perhaps if someone of
>> unimpeachable moral authority like Kirk McKusick were to lead, people
>> would follow, otherwise I can't see any credible candidates amongst
>> the current core superset.
> 
> I remain thoroughly unconvinced that merging Free/Net/OpenBSD back 
> into one mega-project provides additional value to the customer.  One
> of the strengths of the BSD world right now is that we have three
> projects creating BSD software with a different focus: performance,
> portability, and security, which frequently cross-pollinate each
> other.

Divide and Conquer ye mean Wes?

Aye, I have to agree and disagree with that argument. Indeed every `camp'
focuses on different aspects and I guess that's what kept *BSD so strong in
these times... But I think we need some more co-ordination on `standardising'
some of the kernel specifics and sources. Why re-invent the wheel when we could
spend our time looking at other interesting things to pursue?
 
> As long as we can keep the groups sharing device drivers, applications,
> utilities and such, there is no overriding need for them to share a
> common kernel.

But there could be made some sort of effort of deciding on some common naming
for controllers and devices and all that sort of things...

> I agree it would be a good idea to share marketing efforts between
> the groups to some extent, to tell the world how and why BSD is a
> better solution, and to tell the world about the open, usable BSD
> licensing model.  This doesn't, however, mean we NEED an grand
> unified FreeOpenNetBSD kernel.

Indeed we don't need a `big' kernel...

However the other point ye raised is exactly what I proposed on advocacy a
while ago. Some sort of banner, let's say, the BSD ring: FreeBSD, NetBSD,
OpenBSD (and mayhaps even picoBSD later on).

---
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven/Asmodai
asmodai(at)wxs.nl                   |  Cum angelis et pueris,
Junior Network/Security Specialist  |  fideles inveniamur
*BSD & picoBSD: The Power to Serve... <http://www.freebsd.org>