Subject: Re: /opt (NOT!)
To: Charles Ewen MacMillan <ilixi@Tezcat.Com>
From: Rob Healey <email@example.com>
Date: 09/12/1994 08:55:23
> It also costs me something if I am required to change an existing
> installation, if the Amiga port diverges too far from m68k as an ideal, or
> if it adds anything to the system that I am not going to use.
Just a reminder, NetBSD is NOT nailed down yet. ANY part of it
could change drastically with NO notice. If you or anybody
else is assuming there is something rock solid about NetBSD then
I suggest you prepare yourself for the inevitable rude awakening...
Already, some non-m68k change was made to the kernel recently and
the m68k ports lost debugger capability because of it... Expect
more of the same as time goes on. That's just the way it is.
> SVR4 is not the work of Sun, and Sun has released only a SVr4-like
> operating system, which has no advantages for any of my machines, due to
> the greatly increased overhead of Solaris.
Actually, most of SVR4, as opposed to SVR4.2, was actually "ghost"
written by Sun. They had a major impact on almost everything.
By the way, see back issues of the Sun group to find out why the
overhead argument of Solaris is an outdated falicy. 2.4 is faster
the 4.1.3/1.1.1B and 2.3 is about on par once you get all the
patches in place. Since you seem to state this as a fact I have
reason to suspect your other conclusions... Alot of the falicy
was due to ignorance of Solaris/SVR4 and thus improper porting and/or
Anyways, the main point of my message is the make clear the NetBSD
is in no way, shape or form nailed down and stable. If you are
expecting/assuming it to be so then you are in for a nasty
surprise, probably in the near future.
NetBSD is not some sort of commercial venture, it's a public effort
across multiple platforms. Problems can be introduced from many
places at any time with no obvious reason for sudden malfunction. Be
aware of this before commiting to NetBSD.