Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA1838 ; Tue, 23 Feb 93 15:00:25 EST Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!haven.umd.edu!uunet!not-for-mail From: sef@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: WFJ's talk last night... Date: 21 Feb 1993 13:58:44 -0800 Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Lines: 17 Sender: sef@ftp.UU.NET Message-ID: <1m8tukINN3uj@ftp.UU.NET> References: <1m1a0oINN8ds@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> <CGD.93Feb19140552@eden.CS.Berkeley.EDU> <C2qyyp.Hn1@sugar.neosoft.com> <fZDtP0x@quack.sac.ca.us> NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.uu.net In article <fZDtP0x@quack.sac.ca.us> dfox@quack.sac.ca.us (David Fox) writes: >In article <C2qyyp.Hn1@sugar.neosoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>(3) be incompatible >>at the kernel level with BSDI. >Who cares about (3)? (grin) *I* do. Most people should. All sorts of intelligent, resourceful, and knowledgeable people are using BSDI's product. Quite a few of these people might like to see any code they write made freely available. But if it is only useful to bsd/386, why should they bother? I spent an hour last night getting a single routine working from bsd/386 to 386bsd. The differences were small but annoying, and they're only going to get worse.