Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:5017 comp.os.386bsd.misc:967 Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!alm From: alm@netcom.com (Andrew Moore) Subject: Re: Comparing anything to NetBSD Message-ID: <almCD8KFo.G6w@netcom.com> Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) References: <DERAADT.93Sep10232713@newt.fsa.ca> <26t5dt$80e@pdq.coe.montana.edu> <MYCROFT.93Sep11210818@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1993 10:14:12 GMT Lines: 18 In article <MYCROFT.93Sep11210818@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mycroft@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes: >In general, you can ignore anything any of the FreeBSD or NetBSD >people say after such a comparison, because they are all (including >myself) biased assholes who just want to push their own system. Stating the intent of FreeBSD developers, as I understand them, is not intended to push FreeBSD, nor to detract from NetBSD. You call it misinformation, but these are simply expressed interests. By i386-specific support, I mean, for instance, integrating the Future Domain driver, dealing with DOS partitions during install, supporting old IDE drives and so on. This is thankless work, but all the kernel mods in the world aren't going to help those who need this more basic stuff. If NetBSD is in fact addressing these and like issues, then I gladly retract my claim and fully endorse NetBSD independent of FreeBSD. -AM