Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:13852 comp.os.386bsd.misc:3737 Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!pacbell.com!amdahl!netcomsv!netcom.com!jmonroy From: jmonroy@netcom.com (Jesus Monroy Jr) Subject: Re: How UTTERLY Amazing! (Was Re: FreeBSD vs NetBSD) Message-ID: <jmonroyCxqHo8.Kz3@netcom.com> Followup-To: comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] References: <jmonroyCxLquF.HDz@netcom.com> <1994Oct13.201651.15083@palantir.p.tvt.se> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 21:43:20 GMT Lines: 86 Paul Pries (paul@pp2.smc.south.telia.se) wrote: : jmonroy@netcom.com (Jesus Monroy Jr) writes: : : Paul Pries (paul@pp2.smc.south.telia.se) wrote: : : : chrisb@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Chris Bitmead) writes: : : : : In article <jmonroyCxG197.MqI@netcom.com> jmonroy@netcom.com (Jesus Monroy Jr) writes: : : : : : [ A lot of stuff nuked, both good and baaaaad...] : : : [ Even more stuff nuked ] : : : : : And what about the vapourous 386BSD-1.0? Shouldn't that also be renamed? : : : If we follow the analogy, wouldn't it be called "BSD DOS 1.0" ? ;-) : : : : : OK, I'll bite. : I knew you would... ;-) : : : : Yes, I'll agree with this. : With what? The renaming, or the name? There is a difference... : I'll agree that 386bsd r1.0 is vaporous. I'll agree that it might also need to be renamed. I'll agree that his analogy might be correct. : : : : Bill and Lynn have just as much at stake here as they : : next developer. Sure, I've heard tell of other OSs : : called Toy OSs, but does this stand to warrent that : : possibly 386bsd R1.0 could be a "Toy OS". : : : : Maybe! : I never called it a "toy OS", maybe a few other things, but not that. : What really pissed me off, was the ranting about "developement : environments" and how bad those are in the different BSD clones. : I won't comment on the examples you gave, they speak for them selves. : OK... you can do that. : What I really meant with the name "DOS BSD-1.0" was, that how can *you* : tell us how great 386BSD-1.0 will be in one breath, and in the next one : slap the *BSD development environment to the floor, when everybody knows : (even you, if I recall your own statements) that Bill and Lynne don't : give shit about _any_ environment (but their own, perhaps). : The only thing that counts for them is "cutting edge", you said it : ypurself. : Please explin this to me, but in plain english, no rantings. : OK. You'll have to bring this topic back again if your really interested... This thread and others are keeping me going right now and I don't have time to go on a tangent for a very good question. I hope this answer is Ok with you Paul. : : : : This call out, it's anybodys (sp?) game. : : So let's line up the chip and give this a go : : by throwing the dice against the wall. : : : : Bottom Line, A rat's ass won't matter cause it's : : going to be the silent developers that will : : make the difference here,,, those working on : : tommorrows tecnology, not those that are working : : on a rehash of VI (sorry elvis). : : : Yeah, the silent developers. They who produce code, not vapour. : Those who speak for themselves when they are ready to show some code. : Reread the above two lines, and think again what they say. : My point is that there are hundreds of developers out there (commercial and hobby) that don't have time to get on and listen to you or me blatter on about XYZ points on LINUX of *BSD. Additionally if they are of any worth, they wont' argue with any of the above personel.... Again this refers to my point, "The silent developer". -- Jesus Monroy Jr jmonroy@netcom.com Zebra Research /386BSD/device-drivers /fd /qic /clock /documentation ___________________________________________________________________________