tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3813856659277593071.post9154962467317365808..comments2023-05-10T17:32:28.225+02:00Comments on The Beez' speaks..: I like my bazaar!The Beez'http://www.blogger.com/profile/14718864828133872589noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3813856659277593071.post-35376124539708749062008-05-05T20:51:00.000+02:002008-05-05T20:51:00.000+02:00As you said the writer is only partially invalid, ...As you said the writer is only partially invalid, having such a huge amount of distros as the GNU\Linux do creates too many incompatibilities at some point, such as the package management systems. I find it stupid to have such a variety, the major distros could have agreed on a single one or at least create a new one to suit everyones tastes and optimize it. <BR/>Also i'm sure some distros could merge, not only because they could have similar goals but also because bigger developing teams mean faster and better development. The big number of distributions could mean that something may be developed in many distributions at the same time yet the developers are unaware of the fact thus wasting time by doing twice the work they could have done.The Beasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08327404912738074892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3813856659277593071.post-17487975624487766012008-05-05T13:42:00.000+02:002008-05-05T13:42:00.000+02:00I completely agree with your comments in your arti...I completely agree with your comments in your article. It seems the article you are responding to is using the number of GNU/Linux distributions around as a reason to rubbish the Bazaar style of development. <BR/><BR/>This is complete rubbish. As everyone knows the main difference between the the BSDs and GNU/Linux is the license. I will rather contribute to a project that I know will continue giving back to the community, not one that could be locked up at a moments notice or no notice at all.<BR/><BR/>I bet this is the reason why GNU/Linux (kernel and GNU programs) has much more developers than the BSDs. A consequence of this (a good one too) is that there a lots of ideas floating around. Not all the ideas can be implemented in one single project and thus there are forks. And thats why there are different distributions. Each distribution picks the ideas they think are best and package them for their users.<BR/><BR/>I will hate to have an operating system that does not meet my needs (be it free or not). And that is why I use GNU/Linux, because the options are limitless (well, may be not limitless but about 100 times what you get in the BSD world).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3813856659277593071.post-29093559628167880562008-05-05T13:05:00.000+02:002008-05-05T13:05:00.000+02:00I agree. GNU/Linux and the *BSD's should exist sid...I agree. GNU/Linux and the *BSD's should exist side by side. Cooperation is good and there are several instances where this happens, but wholesale joint development isn't going to happen nor would it be beneficial. <BR/><BR/>The first and ideological chasm of GNU/Linux's "quid pro quo licensing" and *BSD's "Attribution licensing" is practically insurmountable. The GNU/Linux camp wouldn't be to pleased to have a BSD licensed copy of GNU/Linux available and the *BSD camp won't go copyleft, so bridging the licensing issue poses a Herculean task.<BR/><BR/>The second practical chasm is the development methodology. GNU/Linux's strength lies in its chaotic and organic development, resulting in best of breed code. It's a bumpy ride, but it yields large improvements in relatively short time. The structured design of the *BSD's delivers dependable code which stays relatively stable over consecutive releases. In an environment where rapid change is not a plus, the *BSD's are a perfect fit. Combining the two is impossible. Either GNU/Linux loses the organic best of breed approach or the *BSD's become less stable. In both cases we lose.<BR/><BR/>On the many ports of NetBSD. It is a core goal of NetBSD to run on as many architectures as possible (be highly portable), so 58 ports is to be expected. That is the big plus of strictly hierarchical development, state what you want and work towards "ticking that item off the list". But it is also a weakness, because it doesn't lend itself for sidetrips in uncharted territory. Only the stated goals are achieved and "random" improvements outside the scope of its mission never materialise.<BR/><BR/>GNU/Linux also has a goal, but it is unstated. It is to scratch itches as they arise with the best available code at the time. That is why the development methodology is "hodge podge", but it ultimately delivers on scratching those itches. The downside is considerable less stability near the bleeding edge.r_a_triphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01529235830659326169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3813856659277593071.post-91996467149091886112008-05-05T12:24:00.000+02:002008-05-05T12:24:00.000+02:00Creativity is best nurtured in an environment that...Creativity is best nurtured in an environment that embraces diversity. Conformity to a strict set of values is like turning back the time to Dark Ages. I love my Renaissance, in any form it takes. And Linux feels so much like Renaissance to me. Humans are creative by nature, so let's just allow us to tinker with the code and give back to the community.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3813856659277593071.post-19094009199816628832008-05-05T10:15:00.000+02:002008-05-05T10:15:00.000+02:00I'm with you Beez. Bring on the bazaar.I'm with you Beez. Bring on the bazaar.DonGuitarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13970965529323438113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3813856659277593071.post-39797009587458159002008-05-04T16:24:00.000+02:002008-05-04T16:24:00.000+02:00> On the other hand, how many ports > of Linux wer...> On the other hand, how many ports <BR/>> of Linux were done? It runs everything<BR/>> from mobile phones to mainframes. I<BR/>> don't see cathedral-developed software<BR/>> doing that.<BR/><BR/>NetBSD supports more than 54 separate architectures.<BR/><BR/>In any case, the "bazaar/cathedral" dichotomy is an ideologically-inspired caricature, introduced by Eric S. Raymond to denigrate the efforts of Stallman and the GNU Project.<BR/><BR/>FOSS projects of any complexity, regardless of license, necessarily incorporate an element of (meritocratic) hierarchy. What the *BSDs *do* have a strategic focus that enables them to compete on equal terms with Linux in serverspace.<BR/><BR/>> Second, to me the BSD license equals<BR/>> to software theft. <BR/><BR/>Then presumably they'd have died out years ago?Niemuellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02323794521947066805noreply@blogger.com