>      I was just looking at the state of NetBSD an feeling pretty happy
>      about how things have been going and what we have done, in particular
>      with all the ports NetBSD now has.
> 
>      Then I looked at FreeBSD's latest copy and got really depressed
>      as they have all kinds of neat things in there system.  Like, 
>      video capture boards, pcmcia support, many pci drivers, apm, 
>      slip utilties, and many more.

I agree with others that it is not necessarily a disadvantage to have an
OS that does less.  If NetBSD survives (as I believe it shall), a key
will be that the limited core team can maintain and test it as it moves 
forward.  The more stuff that gets added, the harder it is to test.  Consider,
for example, the difficulty of testing a "universal" OS like Windows 95
(please, no anti-Microsoft flames).   They have a goal of making their stuff
work for everyone, with every app, on every system meeting the minimum
requirements.  It should be no surprise that it hasn't been easy to do.  
FreeBSD's ability to evolve may be similarly constrained in future.  There is
a virtue in an OS that does what it does well, and is relatively small.  
I'm certain that APM is coming, for example; and I'm not unhappy that
the core group is taking their time about it, because we'll have to live
with it.

I use NetBSD simply because it is portable, even though I have no plans
to run on anything except x86 hardware.  Having done portable OS's, I know
how much harder it is, and therefore am prepared to be forgiving.  After
all, if I wanted everything, I'd run Windows.  Of course, I'm the kind of
guy who thinks "business audio" is an oxymoron, and has no use for
computer games such as Doom, so maybe I just don't understand....

On a related subject:  is the core group set up to take donations of $ or
gear?

--Terry