4 ms·

Differentiation from Linux is a hot topic whenever FreeBSD is discussed. I could get behind “converge to a fixed scope, and polish relentlessly” as the primary

by jl6 5y ago

Differentiation from Linux is a hot topic whenever FreeBSD is discussed. I could get behind “converge to a fixed scope, and polish relentlessly” as the primary ethos. Wouldn’t it be great for FreeBSD to be the first OS to have a release that was actually, truly finished? At the moment, all OS releases are just waymarkers on an endless, goalless roadmap of perpetual development.

burrows 5y ago
> I could get behind “converge to a fixed scope, and polish relentlessly” as the primary ethos. > Wouldn’t it be great for FreeBSD to be the first OS to have a release that was actually, truly finished? By OS do you mean just the kernel or also the userspace? Then I think the challenge is to determine what gets included under the purview of relentless polishing. Assuming you mean just the kernel, then probably bug fixes are included. But what about drivers for new hardware? And when researchers at Stanford develop a new file system algorithm with foo bar baz properties? Or a new scheme for sandboxing user programs?
- djbusby 5y ago
  Maybe all new features in new Major version? New FS=Next. But drivers should be buildable by the HW vendor right? And shouldn't the next kernel version be not crazy-hard to port the driver?
  - burrows 5y ago
    > Maybe all new features in new Major version? I don’t think I understand the (many) purpose(s) of OS versioning. Vendors use them to make specific maintenance commitments? “We will continue to make bug fixes for version XYZ until 2025.” And if end users care about a particular program, “Okay, version XZY of my favorite OS supports programs A and B.”? > But drivers should be buildable by the HW vendor right? The vendor may not create a driver for this OS. “Only 10k people use this OS, therefore it’s likely not profitable for us to make a driver for it.”
stragies 5y ago
All the companies making tivoed devices with walled gardens on BSD/MIT-basis would absolutely love it, if the worldwide group of enthusiasts would finally come together to eliminate most of their in-house software development costs by delivering the perfect free solution, that only needs some branding, marketing and lock-in applied. Sarcasm aside, I agree, that lots of software could feel more "finished"/refined. I'm trying to think, which of the xkcd comics fits the best here...
throwawaysysd 5y ago
>Wouldn’t it be great for FreeBSD to be the first OS to have a release that was actually, truly finished? I don't mean this in a rude or dismissive way but these comments make me want to pull my hair out. Deciding your software has a fixed scope and is finished doesn't stop the wheels of progress from turning. Worst case, the rest of the world will decide the scope you chose was crap, for reasons beyond your control, and then your project is dead. I get that it is an engineer's fantasy to build a theoretically "perfect" system but such a thing can't exist in practice. I think you'd have a better chance of proving P=NP or something.
- ThinkBeat 5y ago
  I disagree. There is no good reason why one should strive for a piece of software to be eternal. It would be much better to say, well this is what we wanted to accomplish. The program does a good job now. Later it might be time to build something else. You build a nice warm and cozy cabin in the woods, and you like it. Keeps you warm and dry. Success. Now 15 years later, the area is no longer in the woods, rather it is now zoned within a city to have duplexes. You can then think that you built such a great building that now you need to remodel it into a duplex, and then a quadplex and then a skyscraper. I think saying "my cabin was very good, now I have to let go of it and and build something else" is a much better approach. It is nearly delusional to think that you will write a program that will be good enough to be prepared for what the future brings. We need ot let things die and build again.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  Off the top of your head, what is there in Office 2021 that you genuinely want to use and isn't in Office 2019?
  - shakna 5y ago
    Python scripting support? There is a good reason for new features. But it might be nice if those features came as part of an official set of extensions around a stable core, to get the best of both worlds.
jacques_chester 5y ago
> Wouldn’t it be great for FreeBSD to be the first OS to have a release that was actually, truly finished? Hardware eventually fails. Replacement hardware is eventually incompatible with previous hardware. "Finished" would in this case be a synonym for "dead".
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  Freeze a driver ABI, release drivers separately; ta-da, your OS is still finished within its scope, and new hardware works.
queuebert 5y ago
MS-DOS was pretty much finished there at the end. People still run the last version.
- enduser 5y ago
  The non-portable part of MS-DOS essentially is implemented in the BIOS. When PCs no longer support BIOS booting then MS-DOS will not work, but until then it is sustained by a stable interface.
  - solarengineer 5y ago
    Novell Netware let us load MS DOS over the network and boot locally. Did you mean - MS DOS uses BIOS function calls for functioning?
    - oblio 5y ago
      Doesn't it just use interrupts, directly?
    - enduser 5y ago
      Yep
jlcoff 5y ago
Spend any amount of time in the FreeBSD kernel, and you'll figure out that "polish" aspect is just a myth. The Linux kernel is MUCH cleaner. Kernel subsystem are written by a couple developers at most, in private, and submitted as a +20k/-5k single file diff on a public ML for "discussion". Some developers I spoke with privately were able to make things move a bit by getting their commit bit and start making aggressive changes without discussions / consensus. That wasn't my style.

by jl6 5y ago

burrows 5y ago

> I could get behind “converge to a fixed scope, and polish relentlessly” as the primary ethos. > Wouldn’t it be great for FreeBSD to be the first OS to have a release that was actually, truly finished? By OS do you mean just the kernel or also the userspace? Then I think the challenge is to determine what gets included under the purview of relentless polishing. Assuming you mean just the kernel, then probably bug fixes are included. But what about drivers for new hardware? And when researchers at Stanford develop a new file system algorithm with foo bar baz properties? Or a new scheme for sandboxing user programs?

djbusby 5y ago
Maybe all new features in new Major version? New FS=Next. But drivers should be buildable by the HW vendor right? And shouldn't the next kernel version be not crazy-hard to port the driver?
- burrows 5y ago
  > Maybe all new features in new Major version? I don’t think I understand the (many) purpose(s) of OS versioning. Vendors use them to make specific maintenance commitments? “We will continue to make bug fixes for version XYZ until 2025.” And if end users care about a particular program, “Okay, version XZY of my favorite OS supports programs A and B.”? > But drivers should be buildable by the HW vendor right? The vendor may not create a driver for this OS. “Only 10k people use this OS, therefore it’s likely not profitable for us to make a driver for it.”

stragies 5y ago

All the companies making tivoed devices with walled gardens on BSD/MIT-basis would absolutely love it, if the worldwide group of enthusiasts would finally come together to eliminate most of their in-house software development costs by delivering the perfect free solution, that only needs some branding, marketing and lock-in applied. Sarcasm aside, I agree, that lots of software could feel more "finished"/refined. I'm trying to think, which of the xkcd comics fits the best here...

throwawaysysd 5y ago

>Wouldn’t it be great for FreeBSD to be the first OS to have a release that was actually, truly finished? I don't mean this in a rude or dismissive way but these comments make me want to pull my hair out. Deciding your software has a fixed scope and is finished doesn't stop the wheels of progress from turning. Worst case, the rest of the world will decide the scope you chose was crap, for reasons beyond your control, and then your project is dead. I get that it is an engineer's fantasy to build a theoretically "perfect" system but such a thing can't exist in practice. I think you'd have a better chance of proving P=NP or something.

ThinkBeat 5y ago
I disagree. There is no good reason why one should strive for a piece of software to be eternal. It would be much better to say, well this is what we wanted to accomplish. The program does a good job now. Later it might be time to build something else. You build a nice warm and cozy cabin in the woods, and you like it. Keeps you warm and dry. Success. Now 15 years later, the area is no longer in the woods, rather it is now zoned within a city to have duplexes. You can then think that you built such a great building that now you need to remodel it into a duplex, and then a quadplex and then a skyscraper. I think saying "my cabin was very good, now I have to let go of it and and build something else" is a much better approach. It is nearly delusional to think that you will write a program that will be good enough to be prepared for what the future brings. We need ot let things die and build again.
torstenvl 5y ago
Off the top of your head, what is there in Office 2021 that you genuinely want to use and isn't in Office 2019?
- shakna 5y ago
  Python scripting support? There is a good reason for new features. But it might be nice if those features came as part of an official set of extensions around a stable core, to get the best of both worlds.

jacques_chester 5y ago

> Wouldn’t it be great for FreeBSD to be the first OS to have a release that was actually, truly finished? Hardware eventually fails. Replacement hardware is eventually incompatible with previous hardware. "Finished" would in this case be a synonym for "dead".

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
Freeze a driver ABI, release drivers separately; ta-da, your OS is still finished within its scope, and new hardware works.

queuebert 5y ago

MS-DOS was pretty much finished there at the end. People still run the last version.

enduser 5y ago
The non-portable part of MS-DOS essentially is implemented in the BIOS. When PCs no longer support BIOS booting then MS-DOS will not work, but until then it is sustained by a stable interface.
- solarengineer 5y ago
  Novell Netware let us load MS DOS over the network and boot locally. Did you mean - MS DOS uses BIOS function calls for functioning?
  - oblio 5y ago
    Doesn't it just use interrupts, directly?
  - enduser 5y ago
    Yep

jlcoff 5y ago

Spend any amount of time in the FreeBSD kernel, and you'll figure out that "polish" aspect is just a myth. The Linux kernel is MUCH cleaner. Kernel subsystem are written by a couple developers at most, in private, and submitted as a +20k/-5k single file diff on a public ML for "discussion". Some developers I spoke with privately were able to make things move a bit by getting their commit bit and start making aggressive changes without discussions / consensus. That wasn't my style.