Re: Re (2): NetBSD documentation-hackathon from August 10th to August 14th

[Scrap Happy <Scrap%GMX.com@localhost>]

Hi Jean-Yves,

On 7/22/2011 2:24 AM, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:32:15 -0700, Scrap Happy wrote:
> > > > One of the great strengths of *BSDs over other OSs is its good
> > > > documentation
> > > > and its clear design.
> > >
> > > Also there is the hardware universality claim, "Of course it runs
> > > on NetBSD". Not many contemporary systems run on a Sparc 2.
> >
> > I think you'll find that Linux variants run on far more
> > contemporary *iron*. I suspect this is more important to
> > the vast majority of users than support for 4m/4c machines,
> > etc.
>
> Indeed; but the key difference here is "variants." Linux (wherever you
> got it from, e.g. tarballs, git:, ...), doesn't come with a tool chain
> for cross compilation, image building, documentation (for porting) or

Of course!  "Linux" is little more than "/netbsd" (or whatever
the Linux folks call their kernel).

> even regression tests. People tend to forget that their favorite distros
> isn't just "Linux" but a bunch of other stuff made around, and that it
> does not really match other operating systems also labelled as being Linux.

Yes.  When I try to have a discussion with a client/customer and
"Linux" comes up (as in, "Why should we use NetBSD?  Why can't we
just use Linux?"), I rarely encounter anyone who understands how
*little* "Linux" actually is -- yet how much it will influence the
(e.g., licensing of their) product!

Unfortunately, there is no simple, intuitive parallel to draw to
the PC world that just rolls off your tongue.  Instead, you have
to try to draw on parallels that migrate into the application
domain (e.g., "OK, Bob, everyone in your organization runs Windows,
right?  But, do they all use MSWord for their document preparation
tool?  Or, do some folks use WordPerfect, FrameMaker, etc.?").
Most people are savvy enough to realize that these *are* applications
so the analogy fails to take hold in their mind.  There's nothing
*big* enough (in that world) to put the issue into proper perspective.

Perhaps if there were a wide variety of window managers in use this
might have some resonance with "users" as the basis of an analogy.
<shrug>

> Typically, when you want to move from the hobbyist side to a more
> mainstream system, that part isn't really trivial (from a license
> perspective also: the issue isn't an engineering effort only). It's not
> just about top-recent hardware support; there are OS out there that
> chose to support fewer hardware, but are still highly successful
> considering their relative market share.

Understood.  But the PHB's making these sorts of decisions see
lots of opportunities and *implementations* of Linux-based devices
(again, my experience is with embedded systems so that's the
argument I am always forced to face).  It's only natural for them
to think, "Why can't *we* go that route, also?".  (it's just like
trying to explain why you typically *don't* want to base a product
on a PC platform; it just *looks* "so easy"... :< )

[Problems that pop up *after* the decision are rarely considered
in re-evaluating that original decision]

If *I* then have to sort out how easy/hard (i.e., expensive!) it
will be to port NetBSD to some *modern* piece of hardware, I'm
faced with doing much of it from scratch.  OTOH, they (client)
look and see how their competitors have taken some COTS piece of
hardware, added some I/O's, slapped "Linux" on it and now have a
(supposedly) working product on the market.

E.g., I'm presently researching low-cost tablets for a product.
I can almost *bet* that some Linux hacker/group will have a
big start on porting Linux (the kernel is all I really care
about since the application layer rarely resembles a desktop
machine) to many of the tablets I am interested in.  How many
will have a significant NetBSD effort already under way (or,
*completed*)?  :<

[Again, I'm not a zealot/evangelist.  I have to consider how
efficiently I can get from point A to point B in a product
development cycle.  The "mascot/logo" matters very little to
me or my clients.]

While I can document what I do (did) to get a NetBSD kernel
running on some particular piece of hardware, I'd rarely have
the time to *generalize* that for others to build upon.  So,
unless someone was interested in exactly the same piece of kit
(hint:  there are far more choices for embedded platforms than
there are COTS "systems" -- I had half a dozen SB2000's that I
couldn't *give* away! -- that may have been supported), those
notes are of little value.

[It also seems that there are more hardware hackers in the
Linux camp than NetBSD]

I said it in an earlier post; NetBSD doesn't have a "positioning"
so there is nothing to explicitly draw people to it.  Linux, then,
"wins" based solely on "seats" (not merit, etc).