Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
BSD Operating Systems

Michael Smith Leaves Core 61

Donald Burr of Borg writes "Following in the footsteps of Jordan Hubbard, Michael Smith leaves the FreeBSD core team. Reasons cited are similar to those that jkh gave, including displeasure at the bureacracy and politicking, and FreeBSD not being "fun" anymore."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Michael Smith Leaves Core

Comments Filter:
  • To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the
    cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right
    this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.


    The ultimate anti-troll.
  • To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.

    I don't know what is more startling: that a core BSD member thinks "BSD is dying" trolls are worth addressing or that he seems to be saying that they're right.

    • If FreeBSD dies, the terrorists have won.
    • Balderdash.

      Slashdot's "BSD is dying" troll is notorious -- there are few people in the open-source community who haven't seen or heard of those posts. Mike's use of the troll in a rhetorical device is natural; he's simply saying that even though he and Jordan are "dying" parts of FreeBSD, FreeBSD goes on. (I suspect that his reference to the troll is also making a dig at the people he blames for making his life on core miserable by tying them to the "Slashdot crowd.")

      FreeBSD is making steady progress on a variety of fronts. Mike's complaint isn't that FreeBSD itself is dying, or broken. It's that the project's governance is broken, and that far too much time is spent arguing petty matters with little effect beyond making the participants unhappy.

      There is one way that Mike's leaving is a Good Thing, in that it will trigger a core election. That may go some ways toward solving the problem.

      -Ed
      • by Anonymous Coward
        It's that the project's governance is broken, and that far too much time is spent arguing petty matters with little effect beyond making the participants unhappy.

        "We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personalities?"

        His harshest words are reserved for the "politically obsessed" and the "grandstanders, the prima donnas"
  • Life Moves on (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    While I happen to use OpenBSD, I don't think this spells the end of FreeBSD, any more than any of the changes that come to the Tech sector spell the end of a company. What happened to the IBM PC after Estridge was killed in a plane crash? IBM went on. Maybe they didn't _own_ the market in a few years, but hey, they are still around. What about all the top guys leaving Microsoft? Paul Allen, etc. yet they still rake in the bucks.

    With the way opensource, and *BSD is spread out, the exodus of a few "core" members is not tragic. Maybe a wakeup call to get a little smoother on the politics, but that is life.

    Move along folks, there is nothing of interest here, OH WAIT! Is that the *BSD is Dying troll over there? Nah, just some bozo...

  • Text of the email (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years
    ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of
    debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many
    rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.

    Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD
    project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old
    going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the
    same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.

    FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right
    way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when
    the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was
    something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an
    endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and
    worthwhile.

    It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and
    milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told.
    It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead
    the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they
    think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole
    has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed
    with process and mechanics.

    So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing
    something" about a project that has lost interest in having something
    done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become
    a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't
    achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain
    obligated to care for the project.

    Discussion
    ==========

    I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the
    time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to
    play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to
    address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy
    of playing your politics openly.

    From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges
    that significantly outstrip our ability to deliver. Some of the
    resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the
    fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake
    of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven
    out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since
    then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while
    the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach
    are sorely diminished.

    There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward,
    one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the
    project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or
    it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a
    brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.

    Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and
    the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and
    endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.

    Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting
    shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to
    let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big
    picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with
    as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by
    your fellow travellers?

    Shouts
    ======

    To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the
    cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right
    this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.

    To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community
    at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's when you get
    distracted by the politickers that they sideline you. The tireless
    work that you perform keeping the system clean and building is what
    provides the platform for the obsessives and the prima donnas to have
    their moments in the sun. In the end, we need you all; in order to
    go forwards we must first avoid going backwards.

    To the paranoid conspiracy theorists - yes, I work for Apple too. No, my
    resignation wasn't on Steve's direct orders, or in any way related to work
    I'm doing, may do, may not do, or indeed what was in the tea I had at
    lunchtime today. It's about real problems that the project faces, real
    problems that the project has brought upon itself. You can't escape them
    by inventing excuses about outside influence, the problem stems from
    within.

    To the politically obsessed - give it a break, if you can. No, the
    project isn't a lemonade stand anymore, but it's not a world-spanning
    corporate juggernaut either and some of the more grandiose visions
    going around are in need of a solid dose of reality. Keep it simple,
    stupid.

    To the grandstanders, the prima donnas, and anyone that thinks that
    they can hold the project to ransom for their own agenda - give it a
    break, if you can. When the current core were elected, we took a
    conscious stand against vigorous sanctions, and some of you have
    exploited that. A new core is going to have to decide whether to
    repeat this mistake or get tough. I hope they learn from our errors.

    Future
    ======

    I started work on FreeBSD because it was fun. If I'm going to
    continue, it has to be fun again. There are things I still feel
    obligated to do, and with any luck I'll find the time to meet those
    obligations.

    However I don't feel an obligation to get involved in the political
    mess the project is in right now. I tried, I burnt out. I don't feel
    that my efforts were worthwhile. So I won't be standing for election,
    I won't be shouting from the sidelines, and I probably won't vote in
    the next round of ballots.

    You could say I'm packing up my toys. I'm not going home just yet,
    but I'm not going to play unless you can work out how to make the
    project somewhere fun to be again.

    = Mike

    --
    To announce that there must be no criticism of the president,
    or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not
    only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to
    the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt
    • by Ed Avis ( 5917 )
      Maybe the answer is to break FreeBSD into a 'development' team and a 'packaging' team: the developers can get on with doing cool stuff while the packagers can obsess about things and fight holy wars. Consider Linux as an example. No matter what arguments break out on the Debian mailing lists or which distribution-making companies go bankrupt, this will not cause Linus to resign from kernel development. The kernel developers are shielded from all that. Similarly the gcc, bash, XFree86 and so on developers are not all crowded into one room. The 'single integrated distribution' approach of FreeBSD may produce better quality software (so the BSDers claim), but maybe it doesn't scale so well to large numbers of developers and 'town councils'.
      • by Metrol ( 147060 )
        Maybe the answer is to break FreeBSD into a 'development' team and a 'packaging' team

        There is a seperation of a sort concerning this already. FreeBSD has a Release Engineering Team [freebsd.org] that handles just this kinda stuff.

        Consider Linux as an example.

        Although both FreeBSD and Linux share many similar philosophies and practices, you really can't compare the two in this kind of discussion. If Debian and Linux were the same thing, then you would have something to compare. This seems to get lost on folks who spend a lot of time working with Linux. The kernel, userland, packaging, pretty much the whole enchilada falls under the same project. This has a lot of positive benefits to us end user types. As we are starting to see, this also brings a lot of cooks into the same kitchen.

        The 'single integrated distribution' approach of FreeBSD may produce better quality software (so the BSDers claim), but maybe it doesn't scale so well to large numbers of developers and 'town councils'.

        From looking in at this from way out here on the edges I think you may be approaching the problem with the political setup. FreeBSD seems to have set up a republic of sorts without a president. Could you imagine what the US government would be like if only the congress were involved with making laws? No president, no supreme court. The entire system would be brought to a screeching halt, bogged down in committe. That, or whomever was enjoying the majority for the moment would be distorting all the laws one way or the other. It's just not a pretty picture.

        Before FreeBSD should be looking at any kind of delegating any of the sub-projects, there needs to be a hard look given to the over all political structure. There's just too many folks to keep things to purely a commitee kind of thing, but not enough for a governmental style complexity. Somewhere in the middle is where things need to be. Now to see if the core team has the courage and forethought to head down that road.
  • by questionlp ( 58365 ) on Wednesday May 08, 2002 @05:14PM (#3486998) Homepage
    On the bright side of things, Michael Lucas (who has been actively involved in FreeBSD in one way or another) has been appointed [daemonnews.org] as the FreeBSD Project Donations Liaison Officer.

    Back on topic, it is kind of sad that two respected people have left the FreeBSD core team, but things have to evolve and projects need to become somewhat dynamic rather than stay stagnant. Companies cannot survive with the same set of people on their board of directors forever either (though some wish that isn't the case).

    As projects get more committers, programmers, and commenters, the harder it is to keep focused and be able to agree on the same thing. I think that Linux has shown some of the same symptoms (disagreements between how kernel patches should be handled, etc.).

    Just some of my thoughts... that's all.

  • Goodbye and thanks for all the fish....
    Now seriously, thank you
  • Is it perhaps time for younger people, like Joseph Mallet, to start having more influence within the FreeBSD project?
  • Seems odd that major players are dropping out of the FreeBSD core, but Net and Open are doing just fine.

    Hope they finish SMPng before the project implodes - means I might finally buy a second proc for my OpenBSD machine when the code finds its way into that fork.

    --saint
    • Re:Why FreeBSD? (Score:2, Interesting)

      FreeBSD has the most "political" core group. AFAIK, Net and Open are more concerned with the code being correct, and working, rather than if a part of the man page is in bold or not. I've seen arguments go on for a week after the subject they are debating is fixed, and works quite well. The bikeshed is burnt to the ground. ;-)
  • Hmm...nothing in the above responses rates more than a score of 2 on the moderated /. list. Maybe that's what Mike means - the quality isn't what it used to be. Dunno, I'm too busy trying to fix bugs in ports that used to work when Jordan ran things. Hmm...
  • This is something anyone who has been involved in
    a big project knows and to be honest if Mike Smith
    finds this a problem then he should either have
    left long ago or gone and got a dose of reality
    himself before he joined. You will never find a
    group of homogenised drones who share the same
    common view about everything even in places like
    microsoft so in a freeware project such as BSD
    you've got no chance of an easy life if people
    disagree with something you may be doing.
    People are people, you're always going to get
    egotists , the ones who are always right, the ones
    who like giving orders, the ones who refuse to
    take responsibilty for their actions and so on.

    All I can say is Welcome to The Real World Mr Smith.
  • We wish the entire FreeBSD team well and appreciate your efforts and commitment. I think the key issue IMHO may be to try and understand the challenges of the entire FreeBSD structure. i.e. are the issues technical or non-technical ? Specifically what are they and what can be done to help ? Sometimes it helps to redefine roles, revisit responsibilities, priorities and expectations.

    I think it must be no easy task for core members to understand and resolve such issues. Maybe some kind of a neutral third party could look at the structure and provide positive input to help facilitate the smooth and focused operation of our entire FreeBSD team/effort ?

    Or, maybe it is as simple as reiterating and refreshing the rule book (if one exists ?). This may ensure that everyone is on the same page with regards to roles, responsibilites, priorities and expectations. What do you folks think ?
    • I think that this sort of talk is exactly the reason he left.

      I don't mean this as a flame at you directly, but in this whole article theres lots of "they should do this", "appoint that", "change system".

      Somehow I think its those discussions which detract most from real work.

      Jason
  • What are the future plans for FreeBSD?
    Something must definately be wrong with this many people leaving the core team. It would be good if the remaining core team could give us a summary on where they think they are headed and then open it up to comments from the commiters and BSD users. Such a discussion may not be so useful on Slashdot , too many trolls, but perhaps a registered discussion board on FreeBSD.org would be a good way to get a bigger picture of where te core wants to take the project and where the rest of the community actually sees it going. Perhaps all the arguments that keep coming up in core discussion could be voted on in this discussion group.
    This may not answer all the problems, but it would give the rest of the BSD users a better view of what is going on. It is clear that BSD is not dying, just changing. Ring out the old, ring in the new! The stable release cycle seems to be churning out more releases than ever. With the 4.6 release base already frozen and awaiting finalisation I look forward to the new release, but I look more forward to a bright future for FreeBSD.
  • Smith complains that whoever shouts the loudest wins. His parting shot has him "shouting" by quitting and airing his dirty laundry in public. In this effort he displays little class and I'd say the core team will be much better off without him. The strengths of FreeBSD are due mostly to the core team concept. There is no requirement for it to be fun. If you don't like doing it, then move on graciously.

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer

Working...