Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: The future of NetBSD

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2003

    Default The future of NetBSD

    Subject: The future of NetBSD
    List: netbsd-users
    Date: 08/30/2006 19:27:23

    The NetBSD Project has stagnated to the point of irrelevance. It has
    gotten to the point that being associated with the project is often
    more of a liability than an asset. I will attempt to explain how this
    happened, what the current state of affairs is, and what needs to be
    done to attempt to fix the situation.

    As one of the 4 originators of NetBSD, I am in a fairly unique position.
    I am the only one who has continuously participated and/or watched the
    project over its entire history. Many changes have taken place, and at
    the same time many things have remained the same -- including some of
    our early mistakes.

    I'd like to say that I'm some great visionary, who foresaw the whole OSS
    market, but the fact is that's BS. When we started the project, Linux
    and 386BSD were both little hobbyist systems, both pretty buggy, and
    both lacking a lot of important hardware support. Mostly we were
    scratching an itch: there was no complete package of 386BSD plus the
    necessary patches to make it run on more systems and fix bugs, and there
    was no sign that Bill Jolitz was going to resurface and do anything.

    Much of the project structure evolved because of problems we had early
    on. Probably our best choice was to start using central version control
    right off; this has enabled a very wide view of the code history and
    (eventually) made remote collaboration with a large number of developers
    much easier. Some other things we fudged; e.g. Chris got tired of being
    the point man for everything, and was trying to graduate college, so we
    created an internal "cabal" for managing the project, which became known
    as the "core group". Although the web was very new, we set up a web
    site fairly early, to disseminate information about the project and our

    Much of this early structure (CVS, web site, cabal, etc.) was copied
    verbatim by other open source (this term not being in wide use yet)
    projects -- even the form of the project name and the term "core". This
    later became a kind of standard template for starting up an open source

    Unfortunately, we made some mistakes here. As we've seen over the
    years, one of the great successes of Linux was that it had a strong
    leader, who set goals and directions, and was able to get people to do
    what he wanted -- or find someone else to do it. This latter part is
    also a key element; there was no sense that anyone else "owned" a piece
    of Linux (although de facto "ownership" has happened in some parts); if
    you didn't produce, Linus would use someone else's code. If you wanted
    people to use your stuff, you had to keep moving.

    NetBSD did not have this. Partly due to lack of people, and partly due
    to a more corporate mentality, projects were often "locked". One person
    would say they were working on a project, and everyone else would be
    told to refer to them. Often these projects stagnated, or never
    progressed at all. If they did, the motivators were often very slow.
    As a result, many important projects have moved at a glacial pace, or
    never materialized at all.

    I'm sorry to say that I helped create this problem, and that most of the
    projects which modeled themselves after NetBSD (probably due to its high
    popularity in 1993 and 1994) have suffered similar problems. FreeBSD
    and XFree86, for example, have both forked successor projects (Dragonfly
    and for very similar reasons.

    Unfortunately, these problems still exist in the NetBSD project today,
    and nothing is being done to fix them.


    I won't attempt to pin blame on any specific people for this, except to
    say that some of it is definitely my fault. It's only in retrospect
    that I see so clearly the need for a very strong leader. Had I pursued
    it 10 years ago, things might be very different. Such is life. But
    let's talk about the situation today.

    Today, the project is run by a different cabal. This is the result of a
    coup that took place in 2000-2001, in which The NetBSD Foundation was
    taken over by a fraudulent change of the board of directors. (Note:
    It's probably too late for me to pursue any legal remedy for this,
    unfortunately.) Although "The NetBSD Project" and "The NetBSD
    Foundation" were intended from the start to be separate entities -- the
    latter supplying support infrastructure for the former -- this
    distinction has been actively blurred since, so that the current "board"
    of TNF has rather tight control over many aspects of TNP.

    Were TNF comprised of a good set of leaders, this situation might be
    somewhat acceptable -- though certainly not ideal. The problem is,
    there are really no leaders at this point. "Goals" for releases are not
    based on customer feedback or looking forward to future needs, but
    solely on the basis of what looks like it's bubbled up enough that it
    might be possible to finish in time. There is no high-level direction;
    if you ask "what about the problems with threads" or "will there be a
    flash-friendly file system", the best you'll get is "we'd love to have
    both" -- but no work is done to recruit people to code these things, or
    encourage existing developers to work on them.

    This vacuum has contributed materially to the project's current
    stagnation. Indeed, NetBSD is very far behind on a plethora of very
    important projects. Threading doesn't really work across multiple CPUs
    -- and is even somewhat buggy on one CPU. There is no good flash file
    system. There is no file system journaling (except for LFS, which is
    still somewhat experimental). Although there's been some recent work on
    suspend support, it's still mostly broken. Power management is very
    primitive. Etc. Even new hardware support is generally not being
    originated in NetBSD any more; it's being developed by FreeBSD and
    OpenBSD, and being picked up later. (I think the only recent exception
    to this of any significance is Bluetooth support.)

    For these reasons and others, the project has fallen almost to the point
    of irrelevance. (Some people will probably argue that it's beyond that
    point, but I'm trying to be generous.) This is unfortunate, especially
    since NetBSD usage -- especially in the embedded space -- was growing at
    a good rate in 2000 and 2001, prior to the aforementioned coup.


    At this point most readers are probably wondering whether I'm just
    writing a eulogy for the NetBSD project. In some ways, I am -- it's
    clear that the project, as it currently exists, has no future. It will
    continue to fall further behind, and to become even less relevant. This
    is a sad conclusion to a project that had such bright prospects when it

    I admit that I may be wrong about this, but I assume that most people
    who have contributed to NetBSD, and/or continue to do so, do not desire
    to see the project wallow away like this. So I will outline what I
    think is the only way out:

    1) There must be a strong leadership, and it is not the current one.
    The leadership must honestly want NetBSD to be a premier, world class
    system with leading edge features. The leadership must set
    aggressive goals, and actively recruit people to make them happen.

    2) There must be no more "locking" of projects. Just because one person
    is supposedly working on a problem, that doesn't mean you shouldn't.
    If there ideas are dumb, or even just suboptimal, do it better! If
    there is no progress, hop on it. Don't wait for someone else.

    3) The project must become an *actual* meritocracy, not what I call a
    "volumetocracy". Right now, the people who exert the most influence
    are often the people who produce the least useful product. Indeed,
    they are often people who produce little more than fluff (e.g.
    changing line-ending whitespace!), and often break things.

    4) Speaking of which, there must be negative feedback to discourage
    people from breaking stuff. This has been a continual problem with
    certain "developers" for more than a decade.

    5) There are a number of aspects of the NetBSD architecture that are
    flat out broken, and need serious rehabilitation. Again, the
    leadership needs to recruit people to do these things. Some of them

    * serious problems with the threading architecture (including the
    user-kernel interface), as mentioned earlier;
    * terrible support for kernel modules;
    * the horrible mess that is 32/64-bit compatibility, resulting in
    32-bit apps often not working right on 64-bit kernels; and
    * unbounded maintenance work due to inappropriate and rampant use of
    "quirk" tables and chip-specific tables; e.g. in SCSI, ATAPI, IDE,
    ACPI and SpeedStep support. (I actually did much of this work for
    SCSI, but am not currently able to commit it.)

    6) The existing NetBSD Foundation must be disbanded, and replaced with
    an organization that fulfills its original purpose: to merely handle
    administrative issues, and not to manage day-to-day affairs. The
    extra committees, which mostly do nothing, must be disbanded -- they
    serve only to obfuscate things. Everything else must revert to the
    historically separate entity, the NetBSD Project, to be managed based
    on technical merits. There must be no perceived glamour in
    participating in the Foundation; it must be composed of people doing
    it because they are dedicated and want to help the project.

    (I will note here that this is not due to bitterness over the coup.
    Keeping the NetBSD Project as an unincorporated association actually
    helps protect it.)

    7) The "core" group must be replaced with people who are actually
    competent and dedicated enough to review proposals, accept feedback,
    and make good decisions. More to the point, though, the "core" group
    must only act when *needed* -- most technical decisions should be
    left to the community to hash out; it must not preempt the community
    from developing better solutions. (This is how the "core" group
    worked during most of the project's growth period.)

    8) There must be a set of commit standards -- e.g. about when it is or
    is not acceptable to commit changes that do not change functionality;
    when multiple changed must be batched in one commit; etc. Right now
    it is difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. In addition, there
    must be standards of review.

    I must repeat a point I've made earlier. The current "management" of
    the project is not going to either fix the project's problems, or lead
    the project to solutions. They are going to maintain the status quo,
    and nothing else. If the project is to rise from its charred stump,
    this "management" must be disbanded and replaced wholesale. Anything
    less is a non-solution.


    To some of you, I would like to apologize. There *are* NetBSD
    developers doing good work even now. I'd like to particularly recognize
    and thank those working on kernel locking and UVM problems; wireless
    support (though I'm not sure what happened to my extensive set of rtw
    bug fixes); Bluetooth; G5; and improved ARM support. This is all good
    stuff. In the bigger picture, though, the project needs to do a lot

    - Charles Hannum - past founder, developer, president and director of
    The NetBSD Project and The NetBSD Foundation; sole proprietor of The
    NetBSD Mission; proprietor of The NetBSD CD Project.

    [I'm CCing this to FreeBSD and OpenBSD lists in order to share it with
    the wider *BSD community, not to start a flame war. I hope that people
    reading it have the tact to be respectful of their peers, and consider
    how some of these issues may apply to them as well.]
    Become PHP Expert in 30 days - Free Online Matrimonial - Professional Web Hosting, Designing.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005


    nice info
    thks for psting


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts