>Did I say this is the only solution you should implement?  No.

No; you said it's the solution we *should* implement.

>Did I say that it would work for everyone?  No.

Did you say it would work for NetBSD? I thought that's what you said.

>What I said was that it is the most efficient solution available. If you
>want to design a solution to this problem that ignores what FreeBSD has
>learned by doing it first, or insist that all of your users get their
>source using a single method restricted by the common denominator, so
>be it.

That's not my choice. If I had the choice, I'd rather FreeBSD had had
the clue to do something more portable than a hard-to-port (and
arguably dead) language like modula-3. If i had the choice, I'd look
for something with a real protocol spec that's passed an
interoperability test with an independent implementation, so that we
know the protocol spec is complete and workable.

If you really had a solution, I'd use it. But for me, and for many
other NetBSD users, FreeBSD doesn't *have* any solution. Not in any
way, shape or form. Nada. Zip. That's all I'm trying to get across,
but it doesn't seem to be working.