Re: Re: Debian BSD.. cool idea
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:36:52PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Perhaps fork is the wrong term for a split which occurred because
> the primary author did a rewrite.
Primary author of what?
> I still think they should merge, however. They very much seem to
Well, every day work is shared between the three. You can't just
cut and paste code and merge them together like so. If you _can_ bring
all the functionality of Free to Net or vice versa, feel free to do so.
But it is a large, large job.
> > Also, the BSD kernel is used both in actual OSes and as a model for
> > monolithic kernel design: I'm sure both Linus and AC have a copy of
> > The Complete Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating system
> > around.
> I do agree that there is work to be done on the Linux kernel. However,
> I don't agree that simply following the above documentation is the
> right approach. FreeBSD does incorporate ideas which were originally
> seen in the Linux kernel, and Linux does incorporate ideas which were
> originally seen in the FreeBSD kernel.
Who said it was? Innovation is a good thing.
> However, it seems far more reasonable to ask that Net/Free BSD merge
> than it does to ask that Linux become a BSD system. At least the two
> free BSDs intentionally share a common architecture.
Again, you'll find more people who are for a Net/Free merger than the
five people out there who don't want them to merge. If you would like
to be the one to massively merge the codebases, go right ahead. You'll
get many thanks if you do it right.
... As for the second part of that, what do you mean by:
"more reasonable ... than it does to ask Linux become a BSD system"
"BSD system" can mean many things. But if you mean the definition
that I think you mean, then why is it any more reasonable to expect
BSD to become a Linux system (In the case of Debian/FreeBSD) then it
is to expect Linux to become a BSD system?