Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!sgigate.sgi.com!sgiblab!brunix!mhw
From: mhw@cs.brown.edu (Mark Weaver)
Subject: Re: Call for 386BSD Rel.1.0 SIG (Special Interest Group)
Message-ID: <1994Aug25.064656.3051@cs.brown.edu>
Sender: news@cs.brown.edu
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
References: <3319ti$7rl@agate.berkeley.edu> <jmonroyCuwt5o.Cpw@netcom.com> <1994Aug23.170100.7763@system9.unisys.com> <jmonroyCv240o.22n@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 06:46:56 GMT
Lines: 51
In article <jmonroyCv240o.22n@netcom.com>,
Jesus Monroy Jr <jmonroy@netcom.com> wrote:
>: #1.
>: Reliability, from the end-user viewpoint, is a supported product. That
>: means that the developers actively fix bugs, work on new releases,
>: and deliver updates on a timely basis. Now, we are talking about
>: a free OS, so no *expects* the developers to do these things. We
>: all appreciate their effort, and understand that sometimes 'day jobs'
>: interfere...
>:
> Your response does not answer my quesiton.
> I am assuming that perhaps you mis-read it.
> So, let's try this again.
> Reliable is a noun. Please note this.
> Reliablility is an adverb. So come back at me with your answer.
Jesus, you really shouldn't go explaining english to people, when
you clearly don't have a clue.
Reliable is an adjective.
Reliablility is not a word.
Reliability is a noun.
I believe I speak for the majority of readers here when I say that
his response makes more sense than just about anything I've ever
seen you write.
>: #2.
>: Track record...
>: 386BSD = 0.1
>: NetBSD = 0.8 -> 0.9 -> 1.0 (planned)
>: FreeBSD = 1.0 -> 1.0.2 -> 1.1 -> 1.1.5 -> 1.1.5.1 -> 2.0 (planned)
>: Linux = .95 -> .96 -> ... -> 1.0 -> (I'm not really current on Linux)
>
>: Note that {Free|Net}BSD have had numerous interim alpha/beta releases that
>: I never even mentioned...
>:
> Since you've missed the first question, perhaps we should
> take a stab at this question again.
I've noticed that you have a habit of avoiding questions whenever
you have anything even vaguely resembling an excuse to do so.
Mark "can't believe he took the bait" Weaver
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: Mark_Weaver@brown.edu | Brown University
PGP Key: finger mhw@cs.brown.edu | Dept of Computer Science
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: Mark_Weaver@brown.edu | Brown University
PGP Key: finger mhw@cs.brown.edu | Dept of Computer Science