Re: Please forgive a blatant plug: I reviewed v10 for the Reg

[Liam Proven <lproven%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 at 21:38, Riccardo Mottola
<riccardo.mottola%libero.it@localhost> wrote:
>
> Ciao Liam!

*Waves* :-)
>
> There is actually, but it is never easy. I have seen good transfer
> between NetBSD and OpenBSD in the years, including drivers and such.

I wonder if there might be some way to formalise it, without stepping
on too many egos.

Step 1: a binary interoperability standard, so apps from any BSD can
execute on any other BSD (on the same CPU architecture, obviously.)

Step 2: identify the core OS elements that are widely different, and
those that are largely shared because they are upstream FOSS code.

Unique and different:
* Kernels
* LibC
* Init daemon, maybe?
* Packaging tools

Largely common:
* Shells
* Coreutils?
* Console-level userland?
* X11 server?
* Other core servers, such as HTTPD, SSH, etc.?
* Compilers

Mostly separate:
* Desktop environments and window managers
* Upstream apps such as editors, web browsers, office suites, etc.

Then work out if there could be cooperation on the bulk of the
userland code, so that it could be shared between all of them. One
common set of software repositories that Net/Open/Free/Dragonfly all
drew from.

This could, it seems to me, vastly reduce the maintenance of each
project and allow more effective sharing of developers' time and
effort.

But whether it's possible with all the conflicting egos, I have no idea.

> > Dragonfly has the best installer, IMHO, but of course it has many
> > fewer options to cover.
>
> I only use the "canonical" three.

It's worth trying Dragonfly and Ghost in VMs, at least, just to see
the contrast.

>  I must say as a user I like NetBSD and
> OpenBSD best.

There are good things, yes. I don't know enough to have a favourite.

> I think Debian has a good, but complicated, heavy installer. NetBSD
> could learn something from it, but not too much.
> Debian has a decent partitioning tool

I largely agree there.

> OpenBSD are complicated people..

:-D

> I'm not expert there, but they should have peraps more per

This sentence looks unfinished...?
>
> Terminal type does that for you... and NetBSD install works well even
> ona 9600 baud serial vt100, which is really legacy technology.

I am aware. But it is possible to gracefully scale _up_ as well as down.

> Yes, upgrading sometimes does not well test the bare install. However
> both are important applications.

I often hear from BSD users that they never see the installer so they
don't care.

This is foolish. If you only try to promote to, and include, existing
users then decline is inevitable, because people age and die. In
English it is called "preaching to the choir" and it is a proverb for
pointless, wasted activity.

Whereas your installer is *the first thing* newcomers see. Again, an
English proverb: "you never get  a 2nd chance to make a first
impression."

Lose them then, you lose them forever.

> I tend to too to upgrade... In the case of NetBSD however you still test
> a big part of the install - except partitioning. You do all steps!

That's the job. As the earlier flame in this thread shows, some people
cannot handle criticism of things they are accustomed to.

-- 
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven%cix.co.uk@localhost ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven%gmail.com@localhost
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053