by homeworld.cygnus.com with SMTP; 29 Nov 1998 16:08:08 -0000
	by lorax.ubergeeks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA00554;
	Sun, 29 Nov 1998 11:07:53 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from adrian@lorax.ubergeeks.com)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 11:07:52 -0500 (EST)
From: ADRIAN Filipi-Martin <adrian@ubergeeks.com>
Reply-To: Adrian Filipi-Martin <adrian@ubergeeks.com>
To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>
cc: netbsd-advocacy@NetBSD.ORG,
        FreeBSD advocacy list <FreeBSD-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG>,
        advocacy@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Merging Net/Free/Open-BSD together against Linux
In-Reply-To: <19981127190855.A468@freebie.lemis.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.981129104704.388A-100000@lorax.ubergeeks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Fri, 27 Nov 1998, Greg Lehey wrote:

> > 	The basic reason I'm pursuing the notion of userland unification
> > is that I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the egos are smaller and less
> > likely to be a problem outside of the kernel.  It would also leave the
> > respective camps free to have their own add-ons.  This would be one way to
> > reduce the effort spend tracking what the other groups are doing for the
> > entire distribution.
> 
> You've forgotten something that went by a day or so ago: the source
> trees are structured differently, and the licenses aren't quite the
> same.  In these areas you'll run into an amount of stubbornness^W
> reluctance to change which might surprise you.

	Yes, I'm aware of the differences.  That is clearly significant
obstacle that would need to be overcome.  Like I said, I'm willing to be
egos in userland are smaller.  And as FreeBSD goes multi-platform, it may
have to make some of the same layout changes that NetBSD and OpenBSD made
anyhow. 

> > 	I could see things where 90% of userland, and 90% of the ports
> > (not packages) could be lumped together on a single CD, that could be
> > included in each OS's distribution.  The particular flavor would provide
> > it's kernel sources, system binaries and other bits that are truly kernel
> > specific.
> 
> Well, since you mention the ports, there's an idea.  I know that
> FreeBSD and NetBSD have a certain amount of object code compatibility;
> I expect that applies to OpenBSD as well.  A thing that *really* would
> be worth doing would be smoothing the differences, which would
> probably require some modifications on all three systems.  The result,
> though, would be that the ports (which Walnut Creek already ships
> precompiled) would work on any of the three platforms.  And if you
> prefer the NetBSD dump(8) over the FreeBSD version, there'd be nothing
> to stop you.
> 
> Greg

	Compatability at the ports level could surely be improved, but
don't you think improving compatability at the /usr level would ease
improving the compatability of the ports area?  Without addressing /usr,
you are faced with manging several sets of patches for many ports. 
Unifying /usr would restrict the multiple patch problem to kernel/system
API specific packages. 

	Adrian
--
[ adrian@ubergeeks.com -- Ubergeeks Consulting -- http://www.ubergeeks.com/ ]