Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!majipoor.cygnus.com!kithrup.com!sef From: sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) Subject: Re: Status on discussed merge between NetBSD and FreeBSD Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. References: <JKH.93Nov13222001.2@whisker.lotus.ie> <crt.753292942@tiamat.umd.umich.edu> <CGD.93Nov14085627@eden.cs.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: <CGHs3y.Au2@kithrup.com> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1993 17:18:55 GMT Lines: 46 In article <CGD.93Nov14085627@eden.cs.berkeley.edu> cgd@eden.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Chris G. Demetriou) writes: >you've not tried NetBSD-current lately on a 'serious' system, have you? >we're more stable than they are, and we *have been* for a while. Define "stable." How many major changes are checked in to each try a week? How many minor changes? A system can be buggy as hell, yet still be stable and desirable for that one reason. And what's with the "us" vs. "them"? Between that and a couple of the core netbsd people shouting insults at anyone who disagrees with them, I'm surprised you have anyone helping you at all anymore. >i get get their commit messages via e-mail, in the same way that many of >them get ours.) Real useful after you've removed the ability for all or most of them to check the CVS files, isn't it? > we've had perfectly working shared libs running for going > on 2 weeks; they still don't have it right. We have > shared XFree86. They have linker problems. And how long have they been working on the shared libraries? Answer: about two weeks, taking a package that was written for a somewhat different system and making it work. How long did it take for netbsd to have working shared libraries, from the start of the project? And how long do you honestly expect these linker problems to last? Or did you pounce on them while you still could, instead of waiting a couple of days for them to be cleared up? > we've fixed *so* many machine-dependencies and chunks of > bogus code it's unbelievable; many of those areas they've > not *touched*. Well, then, why don't you share what those are? Nah, I think you're right, name calling and furthering a split is much more productive. (A little note: I am biased. I will not work on netbsd anymore due to the attitudes of deraadt and mycroft, and a bit of cgd; stuff he did last night has further increased that ... *anger*. So take it all with a grain of salt; unlike what cgd and others would like you to believe, both systems do work, quite well, and are perfectly usable for development. Of course, I'm still running 386bsd, and my system has now been up for 8 days; that's better than my SCO system managed at times, so what do I know? :))