Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!usenet.cis.ufl.edu!usenet.ufl.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!mont!mizzou1.missouri.edu!C588212 From: C588212@mizzou1.missouri.edu Subject: 386BSD vs. NetBSD,is there a lesson here? Message-ID: <16BB9ACB6.C588212@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Sender: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: mizzou1.missouri.edu Organization: University of Missouri Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 12:16:54 CDT Lines: 23 Let's step back for a moment and reflect on what has happened over the course of just over a week. A new, more stable, easyer to install, different, however compatible system has been released. Is there somthing wrong here? NO! NetBSD has the right idea. Someone posted about hackers living in unstable systems just fine. I can relate to that, but, once in a while I like to USE my system to do work i.e. write a report ( play games:-) ) etc. and not have to recompile my applications evertime someone feels like modifing the OS. Look at the nasty MSDOS. Sure it's slow, dump, and restrictive BUT, I can run the original verisons of most all old MSDOS programs, no problem. Not Everyone is a hacker, most are users, and if you (the developers) want to see BSD for the PC grow, your going to have to keep it stable and compatible. NetBSD seems to be working in this direction and in their direction I cast my vote. If what I've heard about 386BSD 0.2 is true, it will most likely fail miserably. There is too much work going into working on 386BSD and not applications. When this Unix becomes stable (i.e. NetBSD) people can start chaneling there creative energy into applications for BSD(of which there is a terrible void). 386BSD has served it's purpose, let's move on and not play this silly game of bringing out 386BSD 0.2 and orphaning all this good stuff comming out i.e. Xwindows (I feel for these guys). 386BSD guys, join the NetBSD wagon and help not compete, do what the world wants, not what your ego demands. Think I'm wrong? IBM thought they were right... John Maier <c588212@mizzou1.missouri.edu> * spelling means nothing if you get the message across...*