*BSD News Article 49259


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!swidir.switch.ch!univ-lyon1.fr!news-rocq.inria.fr!news2.EUnet.fr!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!pendragon.jsc.nasa.gov!ames!newsfeed.gsfc.nasa.gov!news!kstailey
From: kstailey@leidecker.gsfc.nasa.gov (Kenneth Stailey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why isn't NetBSD popular?
Date: 16 Aug 1995 19:32:12 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <KSTAILEY.95Aug16153212@leidecker.gsfc.nasa.gov>
References: <DDACyE.CBt@seas.ucla.edu> <40ohil$8rb@pandora.sdsu.edu>
	<DDD8FG.L0B@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: leidecker.gsfc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk's message of Tue, 15 Aug 1995 18:52:26 GMT
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:788 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:4714 comp.os.linux.advocacy:17099

In article <DDD8FG.L0B@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:

   In article <40ohil$8rb@pandora.sdsu.edu> larryr@saturn.sdsu.edu (Larry Riedel) writes:
   >> I'm posting this message to all appropriate newsgroups.  I'm interested in
   >> hearing what makes FreeBSD and Linux much more popular than NetBSD.

   >Marketing.

   Well, partly perhaps.

   The main reason *I* switched to FreeBSD (after running NetBSD 0.8 and
   0.9) was that they had more frequent releases.  Now of course you can
   run NetBSD-current, but the regular(ish) numbered releases of FreeBSD
   means that many other people are running the very same version as you,
   so you're much more likely to find someone who's solved your problem
   or who has built some piece of software for the version you're
   running.

-current + the date (I'm running August 9, 1995 right now) of sup
gives you a "version number".  Then the problem becomes "too many
versions".

As for formal releases, core believes they have to be perfect.  Core
switches the version number, adds "_BETA" to it and stops adding new
features, only bug fixes until the problem reports stop.  Then "_BETA"
is removed from the version number and the release is frozen.  Any
fixes after this are in separate patch files.

As a result you see fewer formal releases since they slow down development.

It's a trade off, more bureaucratic but better quality.

~Ken