4 ms·

Well, both. The BSDs are inarguably falling behind when it comes to active, daily, "regular desktop" users, and a lot of that is due to the struggling they're

Well, both. The BSDs are inarguably falling behind when it comes to active, daily, "regular desktop" users, and a lot of that is due to the struggling they're doing with hardware support and with desktop environments. Either the BSDs are going to end up relegated for a long time to server-only OSs (arguably they already have been), or they are going to somehow commit massive resources to catch up (possibly inventing their own replacement pieces along the way), or they are going to disappear completely. And it is that third outcome that really should make anybody that cares about Linux crap their pants, because the BSDs have some very very nice architectural features and have collectively contributed a lot back to the Linux ecosystem. In some ways, they are way ahead of anything that Linux has to offer. (pf versus iptables is an easy example. I think I would weep with joy if Linux ever threw out iptables and replaced it with pf.) If the support for BSD dwindles down below a certain point, that's going to be bad for the entire Linux community too. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be either inexperienced in either Linux or BSD and don't know any better, or they are short-sighted and don't see any reason to be concerned about the long-term viability of the other.

takluyver 14y ago
But even if no-one's using desktop BSD, the interesting code in it won't disappear, and neither will the people who write that code. Perhaps I'm being short sighted, but I don't see much danger to the Linux ecosystem from BSD's userbase dwindling.
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  Good software isn't like a real-world monument; people don't spend effort to go back and revisit it later and gawk at it. Good software either gets championed by someone, or it fades forever into obscurity. (I wrote a really amazing hack years ago ... in COBOL. Maybe you've heard of me?) Likewise, the people that are contributing to BSD right now are doing so because they believe in what they are working on. Although some of them are true cross-platform developers, many others would never make the switch. It would be agony trying to work in Linux if you're, say, Theo de Raadt. Seriously, I wonder if that might be his own personal version of hell. I use a lot of both -- Debian, an Arch-like thing, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and have for years. The only reason that I know that iptables has serious shortcomings is because I've used pf. If I had never used the BSDs, I would have no idea what I was missing out on. If I had twenty more hours in a day, I might even be tempted to make iptables more pf-like. pf is kind of my go-to for BSD cheerleading, but it shines in other core areas too. For instance, Linux is really only just now getting stuff that looks like a distributed or cluster file system; but BSD has had this for quite a while already. Heck, one of the best options for a while in this area was HAMMER, developed by one guy for his personal BSD. And if you wanted something a little bit more mainstream, FreeBSD has supported ZFS for a long time -- Linux is still catching up there. Or, there was the new malloc that OpenBSD developed a few years ago, that ended up revealing old memory-related bugs in all kinds of software (e.g. http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20080708155228&mode=flat http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=2008070815522...). There's simply no way that all those people would be doing the same kind of work in the sort of environment that Linux is fostering right now.
danieldk 14y ago
Either the BSDs are going to end up relegated for a long time to server-only OSs (arguably they already have been), or they are going to somehow commit massive resources to catch up Actually, with all the disdain for GNOME 3 and Unity (that I can't fully understand), I think the BSDs actually have a window of opportunity. Make or take a desktop environment that those clamoring for GNOME 2 or KDE 3 love, integrate it very well with your base system, and make a very predictable ABI, ABI, and development schedule. Now that almost everyone seems to be involved in crazy desktop experiments, such an oasis of quiet would probably attract lots of UNIX hackers. If the support for BSD dwindles down below a certain point, It doesn't exactly help that there are four major BSDs (if we don't count Mac OS X).
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  > Actually, with all the disdain for GNOME 3 and Unity (that I can't fully understand), I think the BSDs actually have a window of opportunity. I agree, but none of the BSD projects has the developer resources to take advantage of that opportunity right now. It would be a massive undertaking, and, unlike many other aspects of OS development, would require very serious long-term commitments. That's what makes this new screw-you attitude in Linux upstream so frustrating for the BSDs; it's taking groups of developers that are already stretched really thin, and it's placing even greater demands on them, and for pretty silly reasons in some cases. You really can't blame the BSD developers for feeling sabotaged. So I think it's more likely that another desktop environment project that still has sane developers, like xfce, will end up getting some more activity while being easier to install on the BSDs (and consequently better supported there). > It doesn't exactly help that there are four major BSDs Yeah, the fallout between NetBSD and Theo was unfortunate. Each of the BSDs has a specific focus now that doesn't really fit with the others; I'd bet on them all evaporating rather than merging.
- hapless 14y ago
  The reason that KDE 4 and GNOME 3 are tragedies is that the KDE 3 ecosystem is way too big to replace. Hundreds of developers worked for years to build KDE 2.x and 3.x. We have the source code for KDE 3.5, it's just not practical to maintain it with the resources and manpower available outside the project. If it's not practical to merely maintain existing code, I'm not sure I have words for how hard it would be to create a viable replacement. Mind-boggling. Stupendous. Impossible.

takluyver 14y ago

But even if no-one's using desktop BSD, the interesting code in it won't disappear, and neither will the people who write that code. Perhaps I'm being short sighted, but I don't see much danger to the Linux ecosystem from BSD's userbase dwindling.

thaumaturgy 14y ago
Good software isn't like a real-world monument; people don't spend effort to go back and revisit it later and gawk at it. Good software either gets championed by someone, or it fades forever into obscurity. (I wrote a really amazing hack years ago ... in COBOL. Maybe you've heard of me?) Likewise, the people that are contributing to BSD right now are doing so because they believe in what they are working on. Although some of them are true cross-platform developers, many others would never make the switch. It would be agony trying to work in Linux if you're, say, Theo de Raadt. Seriously, I wonder if that might be his own personal version of hell. I use a lot of both -- Debian, an Arch-like thing, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and have for years. The only reason that I know that iptables has serious shortcomings is because I've used pf. If I had never used the BSDs, I would have no idea what I was missing out on. If I had twenty more hours in a day, I might even be tempted to make iptables more pf-like. pf is kind of my go-to for BSD cheerleading, but it shines in other core areas too. For instance, Linux is really only just now getting stuff that looks like a distributed or cluster file system; but BSD has had this for quite a while already. Heck, one of the best options for a while in this area was HAMMER, developed by one guy for his personal BSD. And if you wanted something a little bit more mainstream, FreeBSD has supported ZFS for a long time -- Linux is still catching up there. Or, there was the new malloc that OpenBSD developed a few years ago, that ended up revealing old memory-related bugs in all kinds of software (e.g. http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20080708155228&mode=flat http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=2008070815522...). There's simply no way that all those people would be doing the same kind of work in the sort of environment that Linux is fostering right now.

danieldk 14y ago

Either the BSDs are going to end up relegated for a long time to server-only OSs (arguably they already have been), or they are going to somehow commit massive resources to catch up Actually, with all the disdain for GNOME 3 and Unity (that I can't fully understand), I think the BSDs actually have a window of opportunity. Make or take a desktop environment that those clamoring for GNOME 2 or KDE 3 love, integrate it very well with your base system, and make a very predictable ABI, ABI, and development schedule. Now that almost everyone seems to be involved in crazy desktop experiments, such an oasis of quiet would probably attract lots of UNIX hackers. If the support for BSD dwindles down below a certain point, It doesn't exactly help that there are four major BSDs (if we don't count Mac OS X).

thaumaturgy 14y ago
> Actually, with all the disdain for GNOME 3 and Unity (that I can't fully understand), I think the BSDs actually have a window of opportunity. I agree, but none of the BSD projects has the developer resources to take advantage of that opportunity right now. It would be a massive undertaking, and, unlike many other aspects of OS development, would require very serious long-term commitments. That's what makes this new screw-you attitude in Linux upstream so frustrating for the BSDs; it's taking groups of developers that are already stretched really thin, and it's placing even greater demands on them, and for pretty silly reasons in some cases. You really can't blame the BSD developers for feeling sabotaged. So I think it's more likely that another desktop environment project that still has sane developers, like xfce, will end up getting some more activity while being easier to install on the BSDs (and consequently better supported there). > It doesn't exactly help that there are four major BSDs Yeah, the fallout between NetBSD and Theo was unfortunate. Each of the BSDs has a specific focus now that doesn't really fit with the others; I'd bet on them all evaporating rather than merging.
hapless 14y ago
The reason that KDE 4 and GNOME 3 are tragedies is that the KDE 3 ecosystem is way too big to replace. Hundreds of developers worked for years to build KDE 2.x and 3.x. We have the source code for KDE 3.5, it's just not practical to maintain it with the resources and manpower available outside the project. If it's not practical to merely maintain existing code, I'm not sure I have words for how hard it would be to create a viable replacement. Mind-boggling. Stupendous. Impossible.