Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:13913 comp.os.386bsd.misc:3771
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!news.adelaide.edu.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!news.tpa.com.au!myall.awadi.com.au!myall!blymn
From: blymn@awadi.com.au (Brett Lymn)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: How UTTERLY Amazing! (Was Re: FreeBSD vs NetBSD)
Date: 19 Oct 1994 10:05:59 GMT
Organization: AWA Defence Industries
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <BLYMN.94Oct19193600@mallee.awadi.com.au>
References: <358o3g$p95@umd5.umd.edu> <jmonroyCx11pJ.5nv@netcom.com>
<36upob$ju6@pdq.coe.montana.edu> <jmonroyCxG197.MqI@netcom.com>
<37hfa2$8mt@pdq.coe.montana.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mallee.awadi.com.au
In-reply-to: nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu's message of 12 Oct 1994 20:01:06 GMT
>>>>> "Nate" == Nate Williams <nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu> writes:
In article <37hfa2$8mt@pdq.coe.montana.edu> nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu (Nate Williams) writes:
Nate> In article <jmonroyCxG197.MqI@netcom.com>, Jesus Monroy Jr
Nate> <jmonroy@netcom.com> wrote:
>> I understand that Freebsd plans to use the 4.4 release as it's
>> base. Don't you feel this will limit the potential of FreeBSD
>> as a development enviroment?
Nate> Quite the contrary. I believe many of the advanced features
Nate> of 4.4 will encourage FreeBSD development.
Agreed, 4.4 has some pretty nice stuff in the kernel.
Nate> If 'application resources' were the only criteria for
Nate> running an operating system, we'd all be running DOS, since
Nate> the application developement tools in DOS still blow away
Nate> most of the development tools on all other operating
Nate> systems. This is changing, but application development
Nate> isn't the only thing out there. If your OS can't run your
Nate> applications due to inherent limitations, then you need a
Nate> different OS.
Hmmm obviously you have had a different experience than I have. Are
we talking about integrated development environments? The very ones
that still have key strokes that hark back to Wordstar? The ones that
feel the need to tell you about *every* damn line of code they read
in? The ones that, by default, give you an absolutely microscopic (ie
10 lines) of edit window? The ones that prefer not to give you an
honest decent makefile? The ones that quietly not make targets coz
they don't know what to do with them?
I was thrown head-first from a unix development environment straight
into a windows one. For days I was honestly wondering how anyone
could use this stuff. I am still shell shocked and pining for my
emacs/gdb/devguide/multitasking/mulituser unix environment....
--
Brett Lymn