> Beg pardon, good sirs, but is this what usually happens on the FreeBSD
> lists, or is this back-and-forth merely an anomaly provided for the
> amusement of the casually-included NetBSD crowd?

It's Brett, bucking a society that he thinks could be more
than it is ("I cry not for what man has become, but for
what he could have been").  Brett is somewhat of an ideologue.


> When there was a statement made about "hazing", it was made to sound
> as though it covered both NetBSD and FreeBSD.


The comment was actually directed at all Open Source software
that exists today.  In the large, it applies to all societies
(look at the U.S. Immigration requirements for obtaining a
"green card"; that's "hazing").


> Observing the ping-pong match in progress, I think I can safely
> say that the newbies in NetBSD are treated with much less of a
> hazing than they are in FreeBSD.  Why this is, I'm not sure.

What you are seeing here is not "hazing", so I'm pretty sure
that that's not true.  I occasionally examine the NetBSD list
archives as part of looking at societies formed on the
Internet, and there are similar examples quotable there.

If there's any difference between the groups, it's probably
that FreeBSD is large enough that the exercise of control using
traditional methods is becoming more and more ineffective.
This creates pressure to "chase off" newcomers, particularly
on those who fear anarchy (even a "pure" meritocracy will have
that, since there will always be disagreement on what measurements
constitute figures of merit).

NB: Don't take this size comparison as a commentary on relative
"success"; it's not.


> Regarding ego-boo, anyone who's ever contributed code is not exempt.
> How many people look at something they've written or patched and
> smiled as it worked?  I know I do that.  In the grand scheme of things,
> it's insignificant -- nobody knows (or cares) that I submitted the code.
> It works, and that's all that matters, and that's just fine with me,
> especially considering that I'm not a brilliant coder and can't do device
> drivers.

Actually, it depends on peoples motivation for participating;
obviously, some do it for ego.  You would be surprised, though,
how many people for which that is not the prime motivation.

The most salient fact about participation, and what makes any
Open Source project such a good laboratory for games theory and
applied sociology, is that all participants are self-selected.

There are some participants who are being externally incented
for their participation; I would have to say that, even with
the Linux "phenomenon", and all it's economically incented
participants, FreeBSD is by far the most commercial of all the
Open Source projects.  But FreeBSD is not controlled by a primary
economic motivation.

Self selection is interesting, in that it establishes a seperate
non-monetary economy, based on costs vs. return on investment,
which dictate whether or not continued participation will occur.

Brett is a nice example here; if I had to psycho-analyze him
(which I don't have the credentials to do, despite having helped
several people study for a Master's in Psychiatric Socialwork,
and having read everything they've read), I'd say that Brett is
still here because FreeBSD is the closest social organization to
what he wants to have come into existance.  He can agree or he
can disagree, that's only my opinion right now, with the evidence
at hand.


> Regarding the splits:  I was only present for the Net/Open split, and
> I must confess I was a bit dismayed that it happened.  In doing my part
> to try and step in and avert the split, I received no less than several
> very good pixel-lashings from parties involved and have probably succeeded
> in alienating several people.  So much for good intentions, but life goes
> on.

I've done the same thing, with regard to precluding FreeBSD
splits.  The fact that FreeBSD is the successor river to the
386BSD river, by virtue of the inertia of its founding members
with regard to not striking out on their own until forced to
do so, has been an ally.  Of the groups, FreeBSD has inherited
the least number of volatile elements from previous splits.

Just looking at the form of the mathematical model which applies
to 386BSD, FreeBSD, and NetBSD, as well as others, one could see
that this was, in fact inevitable, it's a nonlinear Richardsonian
competition, and it inherited a large beta value to begin with
(much larger than FreeBSD's, since FreeBSD inherited the natural
beta value from 386BSD).  Or put another way, NetBSD inherited
all the strange attractors which didn't fit with 386BSD, and it
was inevitable that as the NetBSD organization crystalized, of
the strange attractors it had inherited, some would exceed the
damping force of an all-volunteer mutual security society.


[ ... "hostile mailing lists" ... ]

That's pretty much covered, though not in any great detail, I
think.

[ ... "Anti-SYSV sentiment" ... ]

An interesting topic, but for another conversation.  It actually
(IMO) has more to do with social inertia and fear based on a
subliminal undestanding of how strange attractors work in making
flocking behaviour function.  What it comes down to is that it's
a high level threat to mutual security, since mutual security
has its roots in the connectedness, in many people's minds.

It's actually not required that one have _either_ high strength
or high connectivity (reciprical altruism) to be able to damp a
beta-increase induced crisis: damping is an effect of the
existance of the network in the first place.

My reasoning on the NetBSD/OpenBSD split was actually fairly
simplified from the reality.  The Open Source BSD societies are
actually a particular form of a Richardson, with reduced
grievances, low connectivity, and low strength for most players,
with high strength reserved for a few.  It's the classic Mutually
Assured Destruction Between Superpowers scenario.  The primary
damping force is We Fear Change, in the form of defensive
postures, assumed by each superpower, with regard to external
threats.  As long as they back down from "launch on warning"
when the threat is dealt with, everything's fine.  But the smaller
the group, the less likely that is.  When someone finally says
"to hell with mutual security!" and fires a nuke, you get a
schism.

Linux actually went through two major similar events; the first
was the Alan Cox threat, which they had to deal with, because
they guy is (a) a natural leader [he was sitting on a schelling
point, one of ESR's talents] and (b) he was a viable economic
asset, and the second was the advanced console driver controversy,
which had a large faction following [it was itself a strange
attractor], which could have easily led to schism.  Linus
proved his political mettle by backing down on both issues,
right before the schism point.

To give them due credit, for a fuedal aristocracy, Linux has held
up remarkably as a society.  But the jury is still out on whether
they will out-live cult status.

--

Standing on the tracks waving a truce flag can't stop a freight
train, even if it desperately wants to stop.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.