Bitrig: The Short-Lived OpenBSD Fork

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Bitrig: The Short-Lived OpenBSD Fork

Bitrig, the operating system that forked OpenBSD back in 2012, is no longer being developed...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Bitrig-Fork-Dead

[microcode]

Pointless forks are double fun. It is good laugh when they take off and it is an even bigger laugh when they fall.

It wasn't a "pointless fork", it was merged. I'd say this is the definition of a useful fork: it did something that upstream wasn't ready for, but which many users demanded, then upstream agreed.

[microcode]

.The outcome is irrelevant. Forks are just too dramatic.

This is clearly not true, because this one wasn't too dramatic. It was literally "OpenBSD with shiny new base compiler".

[Dharc]

The same happened to EdgeBSD.
I really would like the same happens to HardenedBSD. I mean merge to FreeBSD again.

[starshipeleven]

.The outcome is irrelevant. Forks are just too dramatic.

You say this only because GNOME is the most forked DE of all.

[rockworldmi]

Well DesktopBSD still being worked on at #desktopbsd but will probably come out with new name. Because current domain holder is not giving website to current project lead or something..

[starshipeleven]

Forkable code was never a bad thing. At least it is better than unbuildable software like kde dependencies..

All open source code is forkable, GNOME still got more forks than others tho, what could that mean lol?

[starshipeleven]

Technically the code is not forked until it has changes applied and the code proves buildable. It can be contended that QT is even forkable because it is close to impossible to build it from scratch.

Qt is a GUI toolkit, and there are no forks because it is a massive undertaking. Same if we talk about GTK2 and GTK3 (the GNOME equivalents of Qt, the GUI toolkits), none forks GTK for the same reasons none forks Qt.

[starshipeleven]

And another one bites the dust! Choice is the reason linux failed.

This is a BSD, and it didn't die but got merged back to its upstream.
Trolling score 2/10, you can do better.

[GI_Jack]

Pointless forks are double fun. It is good laugh when they take off and it is an even bigger laugh when they fall.

I'm not quite sure its "pointless". Unless you think the entire point of all software is an end user. It sounds like it was pretty useful as a "research OS", where the goal is to test out new features without disturbing larger stable projects. In git the entire point of a "fork" is to merge it back later, to give the devs a playground for unstable code that doesn't bother a stable upstream.

A classic example is Plan 9. Plan 9 is still in use. It never will see widespread adoption, but at the same token its been insanely useful because features like /proc/ and /sys/ get backported to UNIX. Rebecca Black OS is another good example. It will never give widespread adoption, but its a tech demo fo wayland.


This also misses the biggest feature: It gives a chance for novice developers to hone their skills and level up. So a lot of small DEs, kernels, OSes are great because it creates a minor leauges of people not good enough to play in the big leagues. As they gain experience and knowledge, they can step up.