by homeworld.cygnus.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 1998 17:57:48 -0000
	by obie.softweyr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA10925;
	Thu, 26 Nov 1998 10:56:58 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from wes@softweyr.com)
Message-ID: <365D9654.D15B4217@softweyr.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 10:56:36 -0700
From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>
Organization: Softweyr llc
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>
CC: "J. Joseph Max Katz" <jkatz@cpio.net>, netbsd-advocacy@NetBSD.ORG,
        FreeBSD advocacy list <FreeBSD-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG>,
        advocacy@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Merging Net/Free/Open-BSD together against Linux
References: <820.912058132@zippy.cdrom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> 
> I'd go further in saying that, for all intents and purposes, it's hard
> enough to be considered essentially impossible.  Perhaps if someone of
> unimpeachable moral authority like Kirk McKusick were to lead, people
> would follow, otherwise I can't see any credible candidates amongst
> the current core superset.

I remain thoroughly unconvinced that merging Free/Net/OpenBSD back 
into one mega-project provides additional value to the customer.  One
of the strengths of the BSD world right now is that we have three
projects creating BSD software with a different focus: performance,
portability, and security, which frequently cross-pollinate each
other.

As long as we can keep the groups sharing device drivers, applications,
utilities and such, there is no overriding need for them to share a
common kernel.  Many who come from the Win/Mac world fail to understand
that our differences make us stronger.  Microsoft may have several
thousand engineers looking at security issues in WindowsNT/2000, but
I'd put my money on Theo and his cohorts, who analyze the security of
OpenBSD *because they want to.*  Remember, once they have isolated and
corrected a problem in OpenBSD, it is much easier for developers of
NetBSD and FreeBSD to determine if this problem affects their systems,
and how best to fix it, based on the changes already made to OpenBSD.

I agree it would be a good idea to share marketing efforts between
the groups to some extent, to tell the world how and why BSD is a
better solution, and to tell the world about the open, usable BSD
licensing model.  This doesn't, however, mean we NEED an grand
unified FreeOpenNetBSD kernel.

-- 
       "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"

Wes Peters                                                 Softweyr LLC
http://www.softweyr.com/~softweyr                      wes@softweyr.com