Re: Aw: Xorg vs Wayland (and MIR?) - future for NetBSD X ?

[Swift Griggs <swiftgriggs%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Wed, 28 Dec 2016, Carsten Kunze wrote:
> This will be the time to leave NetBSD and go to OpenBSD.

I run OpenBSD, and it's nice. No problems there. I run FreeBSD, too.

> Or to Linux.

I work with a lot of Linux machines. No thanks.

>  Why not using the original when NetBSD would try to copy Linux?

Well, I can think of several reasons:

1. It's that NetBSD is trying to copy Linux, it's that TNF doesn't have
   the resources to re-invent X11. So we are stuck with what's available.
   During this discussion I see nobody jumping up and down saying how
   great Linux's implementation is - just that it's the only viable
   option.

2. Linux uses systemd and a bunch of other non-Unix-like software I find
   repugnant.

3. Then I'd be exposed to too many Linux users. That doesn't end well
   since most of them run Ubuntu and, uhm, it shows.

> Will systemd on NetBSD be the next step?

Negative. That'd be suicide. The project would implode. I highly doubt 
that'd ever happen. The brain drain would kill TNF, IMHO. It's hyperbolic 
anyhow.

> FreeBSD does already try to copy Linux (+ZFS) just to attract users.

Negative. As others have pointed out ZFS comes from Solaris. Also, Linux 
has pretty terrible implementation of ZFS which is far behind FreeBSD's. 
The closest facsimile, BTRFS, is still light years behind ZFS in features, 
performance, and stability. Linux currently has no real answer to ZFS 
besdies "wait for BTRFS". However, they are making lots of progress in 
BTRFS and since Ted Tso wrote ext2,3,4 (which is downright horrible) I 
figure he's got to have learned something by now. It's likely to emerge as 
something more usable in the next couple of years.

> Indeed, Slackware is much more UNIX like than FreeBSD.

Well since that's totally subjective, I'll just go ahead and completely 
disagree with you. Linux has essentially zero SysV code. I consider early 
BSD to be more-unixy-than-att-UNIX and Linux has much less of that, versus 
FreeBSD.

Slackware is cool and all, it's a hold-out from systemd, too. However, 
it's still running Linux.

> One of the reasons that users prefer NetBSD might be that it is UNIX and 
> not like modern Linux.

Well, being a bit pedantic here, I'll point out that NetBSD doesn't have 
SysV code in it, either. It all depends on how you define "UNIX". I think 
of it as a way of doing things according to the Unix philosophy, best 
defined by Mike Gancarz. Others see "UNIX" as a copyright or trademark. 
Still other see it as a code-path and pedigree from AT&T.

> If this will change I'm glad that there is still OpenBSD.

You have that right. Personally, I'm glad there's more than just OpenBSD. 
Otherwise, I'd have to put up with Theo more than I do, and nobody wants 
that.

-Swift