GNU + Linux = broken development model
Posted Jul 29, 2009 20:30 UTC (Wed) by nevyn
In reply to: GNU + Linux = broken development model
Parent article: A tempest in a tty pot
This illustrates why dividing the kernel and the userland into two totally separate projects is a broken development model that doesn't scale. I'm not trying to start a flamewar by bringing up BSD, but I've always thought that their approach of releasing a complete operating system allows you to make major infrastructure improvements that cross the boundary between kernel and userland.
Ahh, how right you are ... which is why Linux development hasn't scaled as well as *BSD development. Also I know a bunch of Linux customers who would be much happier to be told to just "get their custom enterprise apps. into the main Linux git repo." so that the APIs in the kernel can be broken more often.
*shakes head and wakes up* ... ooohh, bad nightmare there for a minute.
If one of the BSDs wanted to fix their TTY code, they would coordinate the changes in the kernel, core userland, and ports. This allows you to change existing bad behavior with minimal risk of breakage
Last time I checked emacs and kde weren't in BSD.
Existing distributions would be free to fork this implementation and add their own differentiating features, like Ubuntu forks Debian every six months and polishes it up for desktop users.
Except this "description" of Ubuntu vs. Debian is not based on reality either. Zero for three, doing well today little troll.
to post comments)