I have received a few "interesting" pieces of mail from the "L" people
complaining about the treatment their system has received in the FAQ.
I'm hoping the response I sent the last one will stem the tide, but you
how these things work.  Specifically, one line about *BSD code being 
more mature and stable than the code in Linux, just before 1.0 was 
released.  Linux is now up version 2.something, and they claim the 
network performance and stability have improved to "production" quality.
Of course, they also completely fail to mention the fact that the *BSD
group has also had two years to improve their work....

Does anyone out here have any real numbers.  I have heard some excellent
baselines so far (the most rigorous test "really screams, so-and-so told
me") but nothing that would make me spend days and days rewriting the
FAQ for an unsubstantiated one line change.

As many of you know, my purpose in writing and maintaining the FAQ (with
appropriate bows of the head for the ORIGINAL FAQ to Terry Lambert, of
course) is to provide answers, not my own personal opinions on these
issues.  In general, I represent other people opinions as fact; not my
own.

For those of you that are interested, the "derogatory slam on Linux" is
in section 0.  Look for the word "mature".  In fact, what I would
personally rather see is this entire article updated.  A short synopsis
of the six systems in questions (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Linux Red
Hat, Linux Slackware, Linux "that other one no one can remember the name
of") and what their strengths and weaknesses are.  Summer school
students, take note:  I would accept this as a good summer project for a
bright CompSci student; your instructors may vary....

-- 
Dave Burgess  (The man of a thousand E-Mail addresses)
*bsd FAQ Maintainer / SysAdmin for the NetBSD system in my spare bedroom
"Just because something is stupid doesn't mean there isn't someone that 
doesn't want to do it...."