Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!enterpoop.mit.edu!cambridge-news.cygnus.com!athena.mit.edu!raeburn From: raeburn@athena.mit.edu (Ken Raeburn) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development Subject: Re: What happened to these projects ? Date: 29 Apr 1993 04:56:33 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 40 Message-ID: <RAEBURN.93Apr29005633@cambridge.mit.edu> References: <1r855hINN56d@gap.caltech.edu> <hastyC5yJIs.Lqw@netcom.com> <1993Apr26.001822.7537@knobel.GUN.de> <hastyC62oIE.BFH@netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cambridge.cygnus.com In-reply-to: hasty@netcom.com's message of Mon, 26 Apr 1993 04:01:26 GMT In article <hastyC62oIE.BFH@netcom.com> hasty@netcom.com (Amancio Hasty Jr) writes: Before we go on criticizing NetBSD may I suggest that we find out what exactly is NetBSD. It is conceivable that NetBSD satifies all the requirements for an interim release of 386bsd. Better installation, Julian's scsi driver, etc... For almost all the purposes I care about right now, it does. The installation software is better, the SCSI driver works with my disks, etc. (Only problem is the lack of the updated com driver.) And the most important part for me: I don't have time these days to fool around with reading through all the patch kit data and decide which patches I want and update my sources and re-merge my changes and then hack things again so that my source tree doesn't explode from all the old versions the patch kit leaves around (keeping them in the CVS repository should be good enough) and recompile and reinstall libraries and header files and programs, and maybe do it again if the compiler was involved. Not to belittle the efforts of the people doing the patchkit, but at this point, enough has changed since I last updated that I don't want to bother dealing with it all. I want something I can install as a one-shot deal, without recompiling anything. NetBSD gives me that. The interim-release effort hasn't provided it; it may soon, but hasn't yet. So to me, the most important difference between the two is: NetBSD is available NOW. What I haven't figured out yet (maybe because I try not to spend too much time on news every day) is why the two groups are distinct. Both seem to have reasonable sets of goals, and though some of them are different, I don't see why they can't be met as part of the same project. The NetBSD people can work towards their goals, and the 386BSD-0.1.5 people can work towards theirs, and everyone respects all of the combined goals of the group; what's the problem? Were there any conflicting goals?