Subject: Re: Future of NetBSD??
To: Peter Galbavy <email@example.com>
From: Ted Lemon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/25/1995 09:33:28
I hate to run this thread into the ground, but I think that the
user-bashing needs a response.
Yes, the average user is willing to run Microsnot operating systems
even though they crash a lot, and the average user has no idea that
they can run NetBSD and win massively.
However, the reason for this is *not* that the average user doesn't
care about system crashes. Believe me, I know a lot of average
users, and they complain bitterly about their systems locking up
several times a day. The only problem is that they don't have any
choice. Does Lotus 1-2-3 run on NetBSD? No. Does Frame run on
NetBSD/i386? No. Does MS Word run on NetBSD? No.
This is why the average user doesn't use NetBSD. It has absolutely
*nothing* to do with reliability. If I could tell a user what kind of
machine to buy, hand them a CD, tell them to boot it and answer all
the questions, and that user could then have a complete NetBSD install
that could then run Word for Windoze and the like more reliably than
they run under stock Windows 3.1, I think a lot of users would be
interested. But only if I could tell them that it was better -
they'd have no motivation to switch from one lame OS to another.
I know NetBSD doesn't do that now, but I think that's one possible
future for it, and one I would certainly like to see. And frankly, we
don't need to get there *before* Win95. We just need to get there.
MicroSnot is structurally incapable of producing a reliable product
because of the way they hoard their source code, so we really have all
the time in the world... :')