On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 07:27:30AM +0200, Jonathan McKeown wrote: >What I wasn't thrilled about, and hoped to trigger a discussion of, was the >apparent suggestion that FreeBSD must be Linux-compatible at all costs >because weight of numbers makes Linux and GNU a de-facto standard. Whilst I agree that people have stated that GNU/Linux is a de-facto standard, I don't believe that "FreeBSD must be Linux-compatible at all costs" is a logical consequence of this and don't believe anyone implying it in this thread. There _is_ a fine line between adding functionality because it's easy to do/provides useful functionality/ makes it easier to port code and turning FreeBSD into a BSD-licensed Linux. I would suggest that a general discussion of this boundary belongs in a distinct thread. >I do think that where we are having problems because Linux developers are >stuck in their bubble and don't understand the concept of portability, This is aided and abetted by the GNU embrace-and-extend philosophy. >hope) - because there will always be some differences: and after all, it was >the GNU project that came up with autoconf, wasn't it? GNU autoconf may have an admirable objective but it fails dismally as a tool for assisting in the creation of portable software. Based on my recent experiences with a variety of common autoconf FOSS applications, I'd go so far as to say that it impedes portability. -- Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour.
Description: PGP signature