Subject: Re: /opt (NOT!)
To: Rob Healey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Charles Ewen MacMillan <ilixi@Tezcat.Com>
Date: 09/12/1994 09:39:43
On Mon, 12 Sep 1994, Rob Healey wrote:
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 08:55:23 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Rob Healey <email@example.com>
> To: Charles Ewen MacMillan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: /opt (NOT!)
> > 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...
I am not, and never have made any such assumption. What I wish to see is
1) parallelism with the other m68k ports where practical/possible
2) relative compatibility with other current BSD models
3) minimum disruption to the current installed base possible, while
still maintaining goals 1 and 2.
4) minimum disruption to my users
> Actually, most of SVR4, as opposed to SVR4.2, was actually "ghost"
> written by Sun. They had a major impact on almost everything.
I stand corrected.
> 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 overhead argument of Solaris is an outdated falicy. 2.4 is faster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
> tuning decisions.
I have no idea Rob, where it follows that since I am apparently in error
on the SVR4 issue, my other conclusions would be suspect.
My feelings regarding _Solaris_ are based on personal observation of
machines running Solaris, not on any mythology.
Patched or unpatched, a single processor SS2 is faster running 4.1.3_u1
than any rev of Solaris that I have seen as of yet.
> 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.
If I expected as much, I would not be using a research operating system.
I feel that I have made my objections to these two issues, /opt and
If anyone wishes to continue to pigeonhole my arguments as "religious"
in character, or otherwise attempt to imply some manner of emotionalism
at work here, then it is they, not I who need examine their motivations.
Further, even if my viewpoint is conservative in relation to that of
others on this list, it remains a valid viewpoint to express. Change should
be always balanced against the expected benefits of such change, and not
> 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.
I have been running it for over a year, so of this I am quite aware.
Charles Ewen MacMillan | Tezcat.COM - Wicker Park
<firstname.lastname@example.org> | Offering Internet Access
Modem: 312-850-0112/0117| Via Interactive UNIX to
Voice: 312-850-0181 | the Chicago Area.
WWW: http://tezcat.com/ | Mail: email@example.com