NetBSD: what's wrong with the conservatory
The readers are invited to translate the note “Self-interview after leaving the NetBSD board,” published on the Julio Merino blog on Thursday, June 20 of this year.
I apologize for the somewhat frivolous title, but, in my opinion, it better reflects the content of the text; In addition, the “auto-interview of the former member of the governing council” sounds too mechanical.
Shortly before the election of the new governing board of NetBSD, in November 2010, someone put forward my candidacy. It flattered me, I decided to fight for a place. Then, as usual, a series of interviews; the committee meticulously examines and selects a few of the most worthy of the long list of candidates. Four people got on the shortlist: two remained for another term (tron @ and reed @), and the two left (agc @ and david @). The place of the latter was taken by spz @ and jmmv @ (this is me). In April 2011, this list was finally approved, and in May the new composition of the governing board was officially announced. (Three more - snj @, dyoung @ and christos @ - were elected a year earlier, and their powers at that time had not yet expired. - comment of the lane.)
')
Looking back, it’s hard to believe that ten years have passed, and now I’ve become a NetBSD user since version 1.5. My responsibilities in the project have changed more than once during this time: I was a GNOME maintainer, worked on the site, developed a testing system (and still continue), and now I'm on the “board of directors”.
It was two years ago. In June of this year, the two-year term of my office came to an end, and I decided that I would not be promoted to a new term (although I had the opportunity). This is a bitter-sweet solution, but it seems to me that it would be better for the project.
It’s not only and not so much that at some point I realized that I don’t have enough time to work in the council, to the point that I began to regularly miss meetings. The real reason was that I lost my motivation - hence the lack of time, because as they say, there would be a desire, and there will be time.
Probably, if I were in a “real” job, everything would have ended with a “farewell” interview with Eychar of the company. But we do not have an HR department (by the way, we may need to start it? And what is this idea), so I’ll just share with you my thoughts on this. Exclusively in private - I express here only my own opinion.
Let's be clear right away: I have great respect for people involved in the NetBSD project. The vast majority of them (if not all) are very competent and, as far as I can tell, just great guys. I am not going to point a finger at anyone; as is often the case, no one is specifically to blame.
However, the presence of competent and cool comrades by itself does not mean that everything will be fine, that we are on the right path to universal success ; moreover, the situation was exactly the opposite, and to deny it was the same as to hide one's head in the sand. What I mean by “universal success”: competitiveness in a selected market segment, ability, opportunity and inclination for innovation (and not for internal political squabbles), that is, not to be those about whom people around say “it is unnecessary”, “ bury! ”or“ is it still moving? ”but, on the contrary, to be a well-known and interesting open source project attracting“ new blood ”, always having a sufficient“ critical mass ”of developers and clear, well-defined goals shared by users and programmers. If the changes proposed by someone do not fit in or contradict these goals, they are quickly and unequivocally rejected as hindering the development of the project. In the end, you need to have enough developers to keep up with modern hardware and software. Something like this. The list, of course, is far from exhaustive, but I think you understand my idea - this is important for the subsequent story.
Surely some of you will not agree with my list of success factors, but even if so, please, still read to the end. Regardless of what you put into the word “success,” NetBSD, in any case, is not going anywhere and will be for someone (even if in the minority) to remain an ideal system. But this is a shaky (if not to say dumb - approx. Lane) and non-ambitious position, and I’m not at all here to defend it.
It hurts me to watch the years go by, and NetBSD is becoming less and less meaningful (in the terms I mentioned above). Everything is only getting worse: no one can fundamentally change anything without the risk of causing general discontent, both among the old-timers and novices. Here is an example: each year the NetBSD Foundation convenes, according to the charter, a general “shareholders meeting”. The meeting begins with the words of the representative of the board (council). Once, in the year 2003, these performances were very motivating; the leaders had a clear vision of where the project was going and what needed to be done to achieve the goal. Over the years, these speeches have become a summary of the past year, without any program or even a single word about the future.
However, quite common phrases. Let us turn to the specifics. What worries me the most is the lack of leadership in the project, unwillingness to take risks , unwillingness to attract new users whose point of view may somehow differ. All this is very sad for the project and for me, who has devoted him the last 11 years.
Let me explain for each item.
Theoretically, NetBSD is managed by two groups of people: the “ board of directors ” and the so-called “ core team ”. The first deal with common things: donations, budget planning, legal issues, and so on. Core team, in turn, is responsible for the technical part. This is in theory; and yes, both of these commands exist.
In practice, it turns out that none of them truly function, since all that they actually do is respond to requests from users (and “work by kick” - approx. Lane) and / or resolve internal conflicts and disputes. In other words, there are no initiatives or visions that emanate from both groups (as, indeed, from anyone in general). There are, of course, exceptions of a private order, such as proposals, which projects should be financed, but in general this is all.
If you dig deeper, then, in my opinion, the division into a “board of directors” and a “core team” hurts the project rather than benefits. NetBSD is primarily a technical, “programmer” project, and this should not be forgotten. The presence of two independent control groups (formally of the same level) is counterproductive and harmful, if only because it is very difficult to achieve agreement between all (today 13 people), and this will always be accompanied by all sorts of compromises, regardless of the scale of the problem. (There is a well-known phenomenon - the more trivial the sentence, the longer and longer it is discussed, see bikeshed - note.)
I believe that there should be a single group of strong, knowledgeable and understanding people who will be willing to take risks (see below), and, possibly, one leader at all.
Karl Vogel describes both management structures fairly well in his book , Free Software Development; if you have not read, then I advise you not to postpone.
When I say take risk, I mean the ability to make contentious decisions. Solutions that someone may not like so much that they will force them to leave the project; but at the same time it will enable the rest to move forward.
Now things are in such a way that leaders almost always choose the conservative or the most compromise solution in order to please everyone and not annoy anyone. At the same time, it must be remembered that such an approach will still leave someone unhappy - there will always be those who do not express their preferences openly and prefer to remain silent in order not to get upset once again. This is me now about the reaction of the leaders to requests from outside; if they are not asked about anything, they rarely take any initiative at all.
There are many examples of this, but I don’t want to go into the details of each case, with the exception, perhaps, of two particularly obvious ones that have been hanging on for years (and there’s no end to it): refusal of CVS and updating the web site. Details are irrelevant; It is important that there is a general apathy in the project on these issues.
Here, take for example the migration from CVS. The current position is this: there is no version control system that could replace CVS and at the same time retain some of its features. So, if we leave CVS, we run the risk of losing the developers who are so used to these old features (“buggy users”) , that they would prefer to leave the project. You can worry about this, but do not forget that CVS is also far from ideal, and a lot of developers could work much more productively , use something different from CVS. New developers are also unlikely to be eager to join the project when they learn that they will be forced to work with such a toolkit. (Have you tried telling someone that NetBSD still uses CVS? No? Try and see how they react.)
Dilemma: either we change CVS for something else, agreeing to some inconveniences and make us angry at the same time, or leave everything as it is and watch how old developers leave us and new ones do not come. Guess now, what will always win in the end?
I personally was touched right after BSDCan 2012. At the conference, several people (both from the outside and NetBSD participants, including me) just discussed how we could avoid stagnating the project, prevent it from slipping into “uselessness”, get off the ground in solving problems and etc. In fact, nothing but political will is required for this.
As a result of these conversations, I wrote, long and critical, in a provocative manner, about what is wrong with NetBSD and what to do about it. At first, I thought of posting in my blog, but then I decided to send a letter to the council for internal discussion, in the hope that the discussion in a close circle (and not the public) will turn out to be more healthy. Unfortunately, the reaction to my letter was either anger or indifference. (If any of you are reading these lines now: this is not what I wanted. I really hoped to encourage us to solve serious problems, as now. Perhaps then I did not find the right words.)
At BSDCan 2012, we also discussed that we need a mission statement . Each organization should be clearly aware of its goals and be able to prioritize when it is necessary to make controversial decisions. So? So.
I raised this question at the council (it turned out that a similar proposal had already been put forward several years ago). The idea was met coolly and reluctantly, arguing that it is impossible to formulate a mission in such a way as to reach the entire NetBSD audience. Obviously, NetBSD (and, incidentally, any software product) cannot satisfy all the needs of all users; for various reasons, it is not suitable for one or another of them. In the end, we agreed that we would conduct a survey in order to better understand who they are — our users, and what they want from NetBSD — that would be the first step towards a mission statement that no one would meet in hostility.
Then began some sur. Determining exactly what you want to find out and how best to do it, correctly compiling a list of questions, of course, is far from an easy task if you want to get results that more or less reliably describe the views and preferences of your audience. But this is the whole point of the survey! Our discussion quickly went down to discussing which software is best suited for this; almost no one remembered the main goal: they simply did not think sincerely, in any case, that it was something important - to decide which way we were going, why and for whom. As a result, I myself got tired of doing it alone; so yes, I am also partly to blame, that nothing came of this idea. Since then, nothing has changed, and NetBSD remains a project without clear objectives that would allow us to somehow stand out and position ourselves in the market, and for newly arrived members to believe that the project has a future. Which brings me to the next item.
Yes, and also: why do I attach so much more importance to the mission statement? Firstly, it immediately allows users to understand what our project is about and what can be expected from it. And secondly, (and this is more important) sets the criteria by which we can filter out sentences and patches that do not fit into our concept and do not meet our stated goals. Without long and tedious disputes, emotions and mutual insults. Maybe this will upset or even turn away at first, but in the future everyone will be only happier, since the personal goals of the participants will, on the whole, coincide with the goals of the project.
Users NetBSD needs more, more users. Why? Because some of their percentage sooner or later “retrain” into full-fledged project participants, with fresh ideas and energy - and this is exactly what we lack so much now. The more developers, the easier it is for NetBSD to keep up with the times, the more attractive it is for users, some of whom, in turn, join the team with “new blood”, which makes it possible to engage in truly large and innovative projects. This is a vicious circle, and all these years it continued to shrink: we lost users and developers, we could not keep up with the time and could not attract young people.
But the problem is not even that, but the fact that some of the active participants in the project do not want to attract new users. While no one bothers them to work for their own pleasure on one or another piece of the system, to dig in their sandbox, they feel quite comfortable, and they are not at all frustrated by the fact that users scatter to where. (I understand that it is difficult to objectively judge the open source audience of the project, but I think it is obvious to anyone who has been in the project for several years. And if this is not obvious, then I have bad news for you.)
It is widely believed that it is enough just to make a technologically good product, then NetBSD will attract talents and will soon reach the very critical mass of users. Sorry guys, but: This. Not. It works . As it was recently noted by someone in the mailing list: if only technical excellence was enough to attract users, NetBSD should have them in abundance today: after all, the third dozen were broken. And where are these users? If there’s something to talk about, it’s rather about how we lost most of those that we had.
I have not said anything new. If you look at the industry - any industry - you can find many examples where products that were ahead of their time and were better than their competitors ended up losing. Very often, a manufacturer offering an objectively worst solution somehow found a short way to the target audience, conquered the market and eliminated a less agile competitor with a technically more attractive product. Betamax anyone else remember?
I will not say exactly how NetBSD will stop scaring new users, it goes beyond the post, but there are a lot of ways, from purely marketing efforts to defining hard targets, not to mention the changes in the project infrastructure.
In 2006, another former member of the council published his own thoughts on the same topic; in some ways I agree with him, in some ways not. At that time it seemed to me that I know why everything is so . Now it's 2013, that is, seven years have passed, and almost nothing has changed since then, except that it only got worse.
It upsets me terribly. NetBSD is still the same open source Unix-like operating system that annoys me less than others, and I like to work on code. This is a project, big and real, in which I got a great experience as a developer. For these reasons, I'm not leaving the project for good, at least for now. Nevertheless, and unfortunately, it is increasingly difficult for me to find the motivation and desire to invest in NetBSD: in the open source world, there is much more to do with much better results.
“If everything is so bad,” you may ask, “why was the decision bitter and sweet?” It was bitter because I liked working in the council, being part of it, and also because I saw that nothing would change significantly, even stay i for a second term. But at the same time I am glad that I left, and I hope that more energetic and purposeful people will take my place, and they will succeed in everything better than me.
I wish good luck to the governing board and the core team. I hope that with my story I can inspire someone in the project to take more decisive actions and changes in the right direction. I am not specifying nowhere specifically, but the project needs such a vector, and who can determine it, he will win all. :-)
Thanks for reading; I hope that this text will be perceived as sincere and constructive criticism.
About the author: Julio Merino is an active user of BSD systems since FreeBSD 4.2 and NetBSD 1.5 (which he once switched from FreeBSD to). Since 2002 - NetBSD developer. Since November of this year, the FreeBSD committer.
I apologize for the somewhat frivolous title, but, in my opinion, it better reflects the content of the text; In addition, the “auto-interview of the former member of the governing council” sounds too mechanical.
Shortly before the election of the new governing board of NetBSD, in November 2010, someone put forward my candidacy. It flattered me, I decided to fight for a place. Then, as usual, a series of interviews; the committee meticulously examines and selects a few of the most worthy of the long list of candidates. Four people got on the shortlist: two remained for another term (tron @ and reed @), and the two left (agc @ and david @). The place of the latter was taken by spz @ and jmmv @ (this is me). In April 2011, this list was finally approved, and in May the new composition of the governing board was officially announced. (Three more - snj @, dyoung @ and christos @ - were elected a year earlier, and their powers at that time had not yet expired. - comment of the lane.)
')
Looking back, it’s hard to believe that ten years have passed, and now I’ve become a NetBSD user since version 1.5. My responsibilities in the project have changed more than once during this time: I was a GNOME maintainer, worked on the site, developed a testing system (and still continue), and now I'm on the “board of directors”.
It was two years ago. In June of this year, the two-year term of my office came to an end, and I decided that I would not be promoted to a new term (although I had the opportunity). This is a bitter-sweet solution, but it seems to me that it would be better for the project.
It’s not only and not so much that at some point I realized that I don’t have enough time to work in the council, to the point that I began to regularly miss meetings. The real reason was that I lost my motivation - hence the lack of time, because as they say, there would be a desire, and there will be time.
Probably, if I were in a “real” job, everything would have ended with a “farewell” interview with Eychar of the company. But we do not have an HR department (by the way, we may need to start it? And what is this idea), so I’ll just share with you my thoughts on this. Exclusively in private - I express here only my own opinion.
Let's be clear right away: I have great respect for people involved in the NetBSD project. The vast majority of them (if not all) are very competent and, as far as I can tell, just great guys. I am not going to point a finger at anyone; as is often the case, no one is specifically to blame.
However, the presence of competent and cool comrades by itself does not mean that everything will be fine, that we are on the right path to universal success ; moreover, the situation was exactly the opposite, and to deny it was the same as to hide one's head in the sand. What I mean by “universal success”: competitiveness in a selected market segment, ability, opportunity and inclination for innovation (and not for internal political squabbles), that is, not to be those about whom people around say “it is unnecessary”, “ bury! ”or“ is it still moving? ”but, on the contrary, to be a well-known and interesting open source project attracting“ new blood ”, always having a sufficient“ critical mass ”of developers and clear, well-defined goals shared by users and programmers. If the changes proposed by someone do not fit in or contradict these goals, they are quickly and unequivocally rejected as hindering the development of the project. In the end, you need to have enough developers to keep up with modern hardware and software. Something like this. The list, of course, is far from exhaustive, but I think you understand my idea - this is important for the subsequent story.
Surely some of you will not agree with my list of success factors, but even if so, please, still read to the end. Regardless of what you put into the word “success,” NetBSD, in any case, is not going anywhere and will be for someone (even if in the minority) to remain an ideal system. But this is a shaky (if not to say dumb - approx. Lane) and non-ambitious position, and I’m not at all here to defend it.
It hurts me to watch the years go by, and NetBSD is becoming less and less meaningful (in the terms I mentioned above). Everything is only getting worse: no one can fundamentally change anything without the risk of causing general discontent, both among the old-timers and novices. Here is an example: each year the NetBSD Foundation convenes, according to the charter, a general “shareholders meeting”. The meeting begins with the words of the representative of the board (council). Once, in the year 2003, these performances were very motivating; the leaders had a clear vision of where the project was going and what needed to be done to achieve the goal. Over the years, these speeches have become a summary of the past year, without any program or even a single word about the future.
However, quite common phrases. Let us turn to the specifics. What worries me the most is the lack of leadership in the project, unwillingness to take risks , unwillingness to attract new users whose point of view may somehow differ. All this is very sad for the project and for me, who has devoted him the last 11 years.
Let me explain for each item.
Lack of leadership
Theoretically, NetBSD is managed by two groups of people: the “ board of directors ” and the so-called “ core team ”. The first deal with common things: donations, budget planning, legal issues, and so on. Core team, in turn, is responsible for the technical part. This is in theory; and yes, both of these commands exist.
In practice, it turns out that none of them truly function, since all that they actually do is respond to requests from users (and “work by kick” - approx. Lane) and / or resolve internal conflicts and disputes. In other words, there are no initiatives or visions that emanate from both groups (as, indeed, from anyone in general). There are, of course, exceptions of a private order, such as proposals, which projects should be financed, but in general this is all.
If you dig deeper, then, in my opinion, the division into a “board of directors” and a “core team” hurts the project rather than benefits. NetBSD is primarily a technical, “programmer” project, and this should not be forgotten. The presence of two independent control groups (formally of the same level) is counterproductive and harmful, if only because it is very difficult to achieve agreement between all (today 13 people), and this will always be accompanied by all sorts of compromises, regardless of the scale of the problem. (There is a well-known phenomenon - the more trivial the sentence, the longer and longer it is discussed, see bikeshed - note.)
I believe that there should be a single group of strong, knowledgeable and understanding people who will be willing to take risks (see below), and, possibly, one leader at all.
Karl Vogel describes both management structures fairly well in his book , Free Software Development; if you have not read, then I advise you not to postpone.
Inability to take the risk
When I say take risk, I mean the ability to make contentious decisions. Solutions that someone may not like so much that they will force them to leave the project; but at the same time it will enable the rest to move forward.
Now things are in such a way that leaders almost always choose the conservative or the most compromise solution in order to please everyone and not annoy anyone. At the same time, it must be remembered that such an approach will still leave someone unhappy - there will always be those who do not express their preferences openly and prefer to remain silent in order not to get upset once again. This is me now about the reaction of the leaders to requests from outside; if they are not asked about anything, they rarely take any initiative at all.
There are many examples of this, but I don’t want to go into the details of each case, with the exception, perhaps, of two particularly obvious ones that have been hanging on for years (and there’s no end to it): refusal of CVS and updating the web site. Details are irrelevant; It is important that there is a general apathy in the project on these issues.
Here, take for example the migration from CVS. The current position is this: there is no version control system that could replace CVS and at the same time retain some of its features. So, if we leave CVS, we run the risk of losing the developers who are so used to these old features (“buggy users”) , that they would prefer to leave the project. You can worry about this, but do not forget that CVS is also far from ideal, and a lot of developers could work much more productively , use something different from CVS. New developers are also unlikely to be eager to join the project when they learn that they will be forced to work with such a toolkit. (Have you tried telling someone that NetBSD still uses CVS? No? Try and see how they react.)
Dilemma: either we change CVS for something else, agreeing to some inconveniences and make us angry at the same time, or leave everything as it is and watch how old developers leave us and new ones do not come. Guess now, what will always win in the end?
I personally was touched right after BSDCan 2012. At the conference, several people (both from the outside and NetBSD participants, including me) just discussed how we could avoid stagnating the project, prevent it from slipping into “uselessness”, get off the ground in solving problems and etc. In fact, nothing but political will is required for this.
As a result of these conversations, I wrote, long and critical, in a provocative manner, about what is wrong with NetBSD and what to do about it. At first, I thought of posting in my blog, but then I decided to send a letter to the council for internal discussion, in the hope that the discussion in a close circle (and not the public) will turn out to be more healthy. Unfortunately, the reaction to my letter was either anger or indifference. (If any of you are reading these lines now: this is not what I wanted. I really hoped to encourage us to solve serious problems, as now. Perhaps then I did not find the right words.)
At BSDCan 2012, we also discussed that we need a mission statement . Each organization should be clearly aware of its goals and be able to prioritize when it is necessary to make controversial decisions. So? So.
I raised this question at the council (it turned out that a similar proposal had already been put forward several years ago). The idea was met coolly and reluctantly, arguing that it is impossible to formulate a mission in such a way as to reach the entire NetBSD audience. Obviously, NetBSD (and, incidentally, any software product) cannot satisfy all the needs of all users; for various reasons, it is not suitable for one or another of them. In the end, we agreed that we would conduct a survey in order to better understand who they are — our users, and what they want from NetBSD — that would be the first step towards a mission statement that no one would meet in hostility.
Then began some sur. Determining exactly what you want to find out and how best to do it, correctly compiling a list of questions, of course, is far from an easy task if you want to get results that more or less reliably describe the views and preferences of your audience. But this is the whole point of the survey! Our discussion quickly went down to discussing which software is best suited for this; almost no one remembered the main goal: they simply did not think sincerely, in any case, that it was something important - to decide which way we were going, why and for whom. As a result, I myself got tired of doing it alone; so yes, I am also partly to blame, that nothing came of this idea. Since then, nothing has changed, and NetBSD remains a project without clear objectives that would allow us to somehow stand out and position ourselves in the market, and for newly arrived members to believe that the project has a future. Which brings me to the next item.
Yes, and also: why do I attach so much more importance to the mission statement? Firstly, it immediately allows users to understand what our project is about and what can be expected from it. And secondly, (and this is more important) sets the criteria by which we can filter out sentences and patches that do not fit into our concept and do not meet our stated goals. Without long and tedious disputes, emotions and mutual insults. Maybe this will upset or even turn away at first, but in the future everyone will be only happier, since the personal goals of the participants will, on the whole, coincide with the goals of the project.
Reluctance to attract new users
Users NetBSD needs more, more users. Why? Because some of their percentage sooner or later “retrain” into full-fledged project participants, with fresh ideas and energy - and this is exactly what we lack so much now. The more developers, the easier it is for NetBSD to keep up with the times, the more attractive it is for users, some of whom, in turn, join the team with “new blood”, which makes it possible to engage in truly large and innovative projects. This is a vicious circle, and all these years it continued to shrink: we lost users and developers, we could not keep up with the time and could not attract young people.
But the problem is not even that, but the fact that some of the active participants in the project do not want to attract new users. While no one bothers them to work for their own pleasure on one or another piece of the system, to dig in their sandbox, they feel quite comfortable, and they are not at all frustrated by the fact that users scatter to where. (I understand that it is difficult to objectively judge the open source audience of the project, but I think it is obvious to anyone who has been in the project for several years. And if this is not obvious, then I have bad news for you.)
It is widely believed that it is enough just to make a technologically good product, then NetBSD will attract talents and will soon reach the very critical mass of users. Sorry guys, but: This. Not. It works . As it was recently noted by someone in the mailing list: if only technical excellence was enough to attract users, NetBSD should have them in abundance today: after all, the third dozen were broken. And where are these users? If there’s something to talk about, it’s rather about how we lost most of those that we had.
I have not said anything new. If you look at the industry - any industry - you can find many examples where products that were ahead of their time and were better than their competitors ended up losing. Very often, a manufacturer offering an objectively worst solution somehow found a short way to the target audience, conquered the market and eliminated a less agile competitor with a technically more attractive product. Betamax anyone else remember?
I will not say exactly how NetBSD will stop scaring new users, it goes beyond the post, but there are a lot of ways, from purely marketing efforts to defining hard targets, not to mention the changes in the project infrastructure.
Words of farewell
In 2006, another former member of the council published his own thoughts on the same topic; in some ways I agree with him, in some ways not. At that time it seemed to me that I know why everything is so . Now it's 2013, that is, seven years have passed, and almost nothing has changed since then, except that it only got worse.
It upsets me terribly. NetBSD is still the same open source Unix-like operating system that annoys me less than others, and I like to work on code. This is a project, big and real, in which I got a great experience as a developer. For these reasons, I'm not leaving the project for good, at least for now. Nevertheless, and unfortunately, it is increasingly difficult for me to find the motivation and desire to invest in NetBSD: in the open source world, there is much more to do with much better results.
“If everything is so bad,” you may ask, “why was the decision bitter and sweet?” It was bitter because I liked working in the council, being part of it, and also because I saw that nothing would change significantly, even stay i for a second term. But at the same time I am glad that I left, and I hope that more energetic and purposeful people will take my place, and they will succeed in everything better than me.
I wish good luck to the governing board and the core team. I hope that with my story I can inspire someone in the project to take more decisive actions and changes in the right direction. I am not specifying nowhere specifically, but the project needs such a vector, and who can determine it, he will win all. :-)
Thanks for reading; I hope that this text will be perceived as sincere and constructive criticism.
About the author: Julio Merino is an active user of BSD systems since FreeBSD 4.2 and NetBSD 1.5 (which he once switched from FreeBSD to). Since 2002 - NetBSD developer. Since November of this year, the FreeBSD committer.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/201618/
All Articles