The beastie boot menu.
cpressey at catseye.mine.nu
Tue Nov 30 00:22:52 PST 2004
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:25:09 +0100
Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd at online.fr> wrote:
> My problem isn't that user-friendliness isn't a design goal for
> FreeBSD: [...]
Hmm, interesting that you should mention that. I think the basic
underlying reason why FreeBSD is floundering is precisely because it
doesn't have *any* clear design goals anymore.
By "design goal" I don't mean "push down Giant" or "support NDIS
drivers," I mean something more general; a philosophy, a vision.
As the .sig (cheesy as it is) says, OpenBSD is the most secure OS;
NetBSD is the most portable. These are clear, straightforward visions.
But what then is FreeBSD? The same .sig calls it "the most powerful."
And what does that mean? Highest performance? Most stable? Easiest to
use? Most featureful? Fewest bugs? Most accessible? Most conformant
to standards? Plays nicest with other OSes? Largest package system?
Does anyone know?
Only core is in a position to say officially, I suppose. All I can say
is that until they do, I think FreeBSD will continue to flounder. Blind
men versus an elephant: it's really hard to unify a volunteer effort to
a common purpose when you don't really have a clear idea of what your
common purpose is and/or you haven't communicated it clearly. It's a
*lot* easier to contribute to something that's been well-defined.
Just my 2c,
More information about the freebsd-chat