> the first one because of compatibility with the large base of Linux systems
> out there,
I'll say it again: Being compatible with some other system is *not* a
reason to add something to FreeBSD. Sure, if we decide a feature is
useful, then there's a lot to be said for making it compatible with
other systems that already offer that functionality. But adding a
feature just to add compatibility is nothing but bloat.
And it *doesn't matter* how large a base of users that other systems
has. I don't run FreeBSD because it's popular; I run it because I
believe it's the best solution to my problems. I believe that's true
because we - and CSRG before us, and Bell Labs before them - worry
more about quality than about popularity (well, at least if you ignore
OSI). If I wanted a popular OS, I'd run Windows. If I wanted a popular
Unix, I'd run OSX. Turning FreeBSD into Linux is no more desirable
than turning it into Windows.
Mike Meyer <email@example.com> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.