> Since this has already turned into a political argument, I don't feel
 > too bad about saying the following...
 > 
 > For stability, I have no doubt that NetBSD is better.  All you have to
 > do is look back at things like PPP totally failing on FreeBSD 2.0
 > systems, or the massive VM instabilities in the same release.  (This
 > is sometimes excused by the release being `rushed' by legal issues,
 > but it's worth noting that our own 1.0 release happened earlier,
 > resolved similar legal issues, and has proven fairly reliable -- and
 > it runs on several architectures.)

Complaining about 'VM instability' when the VM system has been
completely rewritten is grossly unfair.  Especially considering that
the VM system in NetBSD is, and as far as I know always has been,
broken.  See PR 757, dated January 1995 - so far, nothing has been
done about it.  From what I've seen and heard (from people who know
a lot more about these issues than me) the FreeBSD VM system is
*much* better than NetBSD's these days.

I think we need to recognize that 'the others' can do something right too,
whether those others be FreeBSD, Linux, or even Sun/IBM/Digital/SGI/...
There are many areas in which some or all of these above do things
better and even more `right' [TM] than NetBSD.  That's natural.  We need
to recognize those areas, so we can learn from what others have done.

Hoping for the future of NetBSD,

  -  Arne H. J.