--d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 th=
e=20
>apparent suggestion that FreeBSD must be Linux-compatible at all costs=20
>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=
=20
>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 w=
as=20
>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.
--=20
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.
--d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFHw7W9/opHv/APuIcRAtJvAJ0ZeJJphoH2WsZCwtdWBeAaBZkCWgCcDAGw
EXZRLtfqb3HjIA+ARP7PtIA=
=bJ/5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND--