Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!network.ucsd.edu!equalizer!timbuk.cray.com!uunet!brunix!mhw
From: mhw@cs.brown.edu (Mark Weaver)
Subject: Re: Call for 386BSD Rel.1.0 SIG (Special Interest Group)
Message-ID: <1994Aug25.074246.4082@cs.brown.edu>
Sender: news@cs.brown.edu
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
References: <jmonroyCuFvqp.BKv@netcom.com> <3319ti$7rl@agate.berkeley.edu> <FOO-MAN.94Aug23191512@raven.raven.csrv.uidaho.edu> <jmonroyCv2Iw2.AD9@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 07:42:46 GMT
Lines: 87
In article <jmonroyCv2Iw2.AD9@netcom.com>,
Jesus Monroy Jr <jmonroy@netcom.com> wrote:
> I am making simple announcments, half you idiots say
> you don't think Bill can produce viable work, but
> you insist on letting everyone know that defending this
> to your"net" death.
>
> Has someone else noticed this going on besides me?
I think we're getting away from the point.
I challenge you to answer the following questions in an intelligent
manner. Don't dodge them like you normally do. No "let's continue
with the discussion", no "reliable is a noun", no "composition
wasn't your best subject". Just answer the questions.
1. How can you recommend 386BSD 1.0 to us when you haven't seen
the product?
2. How do you know that 386BSD 1.0 is better than NetBSD/FreeBSD/Linux
if you don't know what's in it?
3. How can you recommend that people wait for 386BSD 1.0 to come out
given Bill's track record?
4. What's the latest version of NetBSD or FreeBSD that you've tried
for yourself, if any?
5. How do you measure reliability?
To answer your question: Why do we insist on refuting your claims?
It's for the benefit of the people who might think that your opinions
are representative of the rest of us.
When someone from the Linux crowd decides to give *BSD a try, they
have to decide which variant to install. We don't want them to
try 386BSD 0.1 and have that outdated version shape their opinions
of our whole group.
Not to mention that cross-posting your "thoughts" to half the known
universe makes us all look bad. To many outsiders, you *are* our
representative.
I'm not saying that 386BSD 0.1 wasn't a remarkable accomplishment.
It *WAS*. If it wasn't for his work, we'd probably all be using
Linux right now. But many brilliant people, including Bill, don't
have the time or the inclination to finish up all the loose ends
and hammer out all the bugs. There's NOTHING wrong with that, but
that doesn't change the fact that most users want a more polished
system.
There's a good chance that 386BSD 1.0 will have new technology that
is worth incorporating into the other variants. But based on past
experience, I doubt that 386BSD 1.0 will be nearly as attractive
to the average user as FreeBSD or NetBSD.
Sure, I could be wrong. 386BSD 1.0 could surprise us all. I'm
just making an educated guess. How much more informed is your
guess? Your posts seem to imply that you don't know much more
about 386BSD 1.0 than we do.
>: how do YOU measure reliability? you seem to know oh-so-much here.
>:
> I see that composition was not your best subject.
> Try again.
Here you go, dodging the question again.
>: you need to clarify your implied accusation.
>: what are you accusing {free,net}bsd of not delivering on?
>:
> yes, you'll need to be more clear.
> present a list.
> show the net.
> quite hiding behind the masquared of numbers...
Having a "discussion" with you is like playing tennis against a
stone wall.
Mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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