Subject: Re: Binary releases and 64 bit off_t
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Ty Sarna <email@example.com>
Date: 04/12/1994 04:42:38
In article <9404051105.AA00398@icecube.cryogenic.com> billc@iceCuBE.cryogenic.com writes:
> not (He's waffling!). What I do care about is that there isn't a -stable, a
> solid working base that gets the problems that we are having fixed, before
> something major is added (incidently I was bitten by the syserrorlist being
> changed, compiling IRC.. thought it was pretty strange). Basically, we don't
> have something that we can say "Yep, burn this puppy on CDROM, and ship it."
Well, the trouble is that the Amiga port wasn't stable when 0.9
happened, so now we have to wait until 1.0 for an official stable
Also note that *nobody* is going to be distributing NetBSD or any other
Net/2 derived system until the USL-tainted stuff gets replaced with
4.4-Lite. (this IS an issue, too. Don't believe for a second that USL
will be understanding about this... They are actively contacting various
Net/2 distributers right now and demanding that they cease and desist...
I know Walnut Creek was contacted about their FreeBSD CDROM, as was some
company selling a disc with NetBSD 0/9/i386 on it). We're actually lucky
they haven't (yet?) bitched about the *BSD -currents being availible.
See comp.unix.bsd for detail... basicly all the *BSDs are on thin ice
until they can replace the USL code with 4.4-Lite's stuff.
> or "Hey Fred, here's 10 disks for a special NetBSD-Amiga distribution for
> ya!", and this is a stage that I really really want to see happen.
Couldn't happen now even if it was stable, thanks to USL. I'm sure Fred
doesn't have deep enough pockets to want to risk attracting attention
from USL's lawyers. (and I think 10 disks is underestimating the size of
even a minimal distribution ;->)
> I respectfully disagree, and I've stated why, but let's not beat a dead FPU.
No, again, I support supporting no-FPU users (shoot, it's in my interests
to). I just don't think it's the #1 priority right now... of course,
anybody is free to work on whatever they want.
> I'll toss in the idea of thinking about the # of 2000s, 500s and 1200s out
> there, to the 3000s and 4000s. Again, I'm advocating the low-midend Amiga
> user here, the one with the 100-300M drive, on the souped up Amiga 500 with
Hey, I'm 50% a low-midend user too :-) One of the two systems I run
NetBSD on is a 2500/20, which AFAIK is the slowest Amiga that can run
NetBSD (it does have an FPU, though). Besides, I don't even have one of
them thar super-fast 40MHz '040 systems like you do ;-)
Ty Sarna "As you know, Joel, children have always looked
firstname.lastname@example.org up to cowboys as role models. And vice versa."