Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:5008 comp.os.386bsd.misc:959 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!think.com!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu!mycroft From: mycroft@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs NetBSD 0.9, wait? [was: Re: from 386bsd0.1 to FreeBSD or NetBSD 0.9] Date: 12 Sep 1993 00:44:00 GMT Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab Lines: 23 Message-ID: <MYCROFT.93Sep11204400@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> References: <CD190K.FwG@latcs1.lat.oz.au> <CD3JII.F5w.1@cs.cmu.edu> <JKH.93Sep9215356@whisker.lotus.ie> <almCD66yI.6LH@netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu In-reply-to: alm@netcom.com's message of Sat, 11 Sep 1993 03:27:53 GMT In article <almCD66yI.6LH@netcom.com> alm@netcom.com (Andrew Moore) writes: In the mean time, I think it is safe to say that FreeBSD is putting more effort into i386-specific support. That comment is totally unfounded. I am personally working on redoing all the autoconfig stuff in NetBSD, since the current stuff is rather braindead, and FreeBSD's isn't any better. The new code is based on Chris Torek's new config, and deals with address conflicts and automatic determining of IRQs. I've looked through the FreeBSD commitlog. Many of the kernel patches were taken from NetBSD, and the few that weren't and were correct and useful have already been incorporated into NetBSD. I cannot say the same in reverse; there are many important changes that have not been incorporated into FreeBSD. I did *not* want to have this argument.