Verily did der Mouse write:

> > A fair number of things that would indicate that we didn't care about
> > compatibility with "traditional BSD," such as the removal of the BSD
> > tty code, the change in symlink behaviour, etc., CAME STRAIGHT FROM
> > BERKELEY...

> So?  As with the POSIX braindamage, just because someone else does it
> is not, in itself, a reason you/we should do it.

Uhmm, and at what point can we no longer call it 'BSD' or 'BSD-flavored'
because we left the beaten-path laid forth by the deities at Berkeley?

Or better yet, should we have set NetBSD up so that we proclaim, 'We're
4.4-Lite based, except for tty handling.' ?  Doesn't make much sense.

POSIX braindamage prevents us from touting 'fully POSIX compliant', but
we're not NetPOSIX either.

-- Rob
----------------------------------------
Internet: windsor@pobox.com      Life: Rob@Sunnyvale.California.USA.Earth
"Da Web": http://pobox.com/~windsor/

"Ain't much distance 'tween a pat on the back and a kick in the pants."
    -- David Lee Roth (1990), `The Dogtown Shuffle'