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!agate!headwall.Stanford.EDU!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> <CGD.93Nov14100033@eden.cs.berkeley.edu> <CGHv40.BKF@kithrup.com> <2c60p5$p6v@zip.eecs.umich.edu> Message-ID: <CGHyMC.CFK@kithrup.com> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1993 19:39:33 GMT Lines: 25 In article <2c60p5$p6v@zip.eecs.umich.edu> dmuntz@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Dan Muntz) writes: >Well, why doesn't someone say why freebsd is better? Gee, maybe because "better" is rather difficult to define for an OS, and nobody wants to offend anyone else? >*I'm not saying this is the case*, but if one system is better than the other, >it's hardly fair to claim otherwise, confusing the issue for people deciding >on which system to use. That's just it... to be honest, neither system is "better." They fit different niches. It would have been nice for each to be able to share code, but cgd has made that well-nigh impossible now. And he's managed to piss everyone off. Which is what a lot of people were trying to avoid in the first place. What makes a system "better" for you may not necessarily be what makes it "better" for me. Hell, linux is still a lot "better" in a lot of respects than either of the *bsds! netbsd is a moving target. freebsd is largely trying to be a stable target. Different attitudes, different goals. Neither is "better." Each one happens to accomplish some different goals a bit "better" than the other, but so what?