Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!ncar!newshost.lanl.gov!beta.lanl.gov!crs From: crs@beta.lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: To Merge or Not to Merge *BSD. What does it really mean? Date: 17 Jan 1995 16:20:59 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 25 Message-ID: <3fgqpb$6b2@newshost.lanl.gov> References: <3f1h83$hgl@newshost.lanl.gov> <3f253c$es0@agate.berkeley.edu> <3f9hst$q8n@idiom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: beta.lanl.gov In article <3f9hst$q8n@idiom.com> muir@idiom.com (David Muir Sharnoff) writes: = = At the upcoming USENIX, BSDI, FreeBSD, and NetBSD are all having = BOFs (informal public meetings) and guess what? They are all scheduled = for the same time slot so it isn't possible to attend more than one. = Says a lot doesn't it? But wouldn't the scheduling have been done by Usenix, as opposed to the *BSD* folks? If so, it was rather silly on the part of Usenix. If, as your comment above seems (to me) to suggest, it was at the choice of the *BSD* folks, something that I find very hard to imagine, it is carrying competition--or whatever--too far. = Source an binary compatability between the camps is extreamly important. I agree that this would be a worthy objective for all the *BSD* folks. -- Best, Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby "I'm the NRA!" crs@lanl.gov