C'est assez amusant de comparer ce mail incendiaire avec l'article sur NetBSD qui vient d'être posté sur le site d'IBM.
Dans l'article de présentation d'IBM on trouve des phrases laudatives de ce style :
*NetBSD's attention to detail, well-written code, and vast portability make it a solid choice for a number of deployment scenarios.
*The system's well thought-out design allows for wide hardware support, a small footprint, stability, and security. NetBSD's unique features include a new paradigm for handling device drivers and other interesting innovations.
Autrement dit NetBSD c'est super, c'est génial, c'est un OS de qualité.
Maintenant si on lit le mail de Charles M. Hannum (un des fondateurs de NetBSD et le directeur du projet) on trouve des phrases assassines de ce style :
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.
* serious problems with the threading architecture
* 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
* unbounded maintenance work due to inappropriate and rampant use of "quirk" tables and chip-specific tables
Ca fait vraiment peur cette différence de perception de la qualité du code !!
Moi je croyais que les BSD (et particulièrement NetBSD) soignaient la qualité du code avant tout...on tombe de haut !
# qualité du code
Posté par patrick_g (site web personnel) . En réponse au journal NetBSD : droit dans le mur ?. Évalué à 9.
Dans l'article de présentation d'IBM on trouve des phrases laudatives de ce style :
*NetBSD's attention to detail, well-written code, and vast portability make it a solid choice for a number of deployment scenarios.
*The system's well thought-out design allows for wide hardware support, a small footprint, stability, and security. NetBSD's unique features include a new paradigm for handling device drivers and other interesting innovations.
Autrement dit NetBSD c'est super, c'est génial, c'est un OS de qualité.
Maintenant si on lit le mail de Charles M. Hannum (un des fondateurs de NetBSD et le directeur du projet) on trouve des phrases assassines de ce style :
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.
* serious problems with the threading architecture
* 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
* unbounded maintenance work due to inappropriate and rampant use of "quirk" tables and chip-specific tables
Ca fait vraiment peur cette différence de perception de la qualité du code !!
Moi je croyais que les BSD (et particulièrement NetBSD) soignaient la qualité du code avant tout...on tombe de haut !