Subject: Re: CVSup collections for a NetBSD CVS tree
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Ian Dall <Ian.Dall@dsto.defence.gov.au>
Date: 04/30/1999 12:12:52
email@example.com (Greg A. Woods) writes:
> There's really no difference at all between a package that doesn't work
> on all platforms, and a having a cvsup.netbsd.org server that not all
> users can make use of.
Except that at least the client for the official distribution scheme,
and preferably the server as well, should be considered core
> If you don't want to use CVSup, then just get out of the way.
? No one is stopping you using whatever applications you want (as if
they could even if they wanted to) so just how anyone is getting in
your way is beyond me. It seems to me you want rather more than for
people to get out of your way, you want them to go *your* way which is
quite a different issue!
The thing I like most about NetBSD is it doesn't try to coax, prod or
goad me into the hardware mono-culture. The suggestion that I could
just buy a junk PC certainly makes economic sense (cost of time to do
ports vs cost of hardware), but if that was all I was interested in I
would have gone along with the crowd long ago and wouldn't be running
Having said that, it wouldbe good if M3 was a first class front end to
gcc. Certainly there are enough things using threads (Java, Ada, M3
apparently) that thread support for all ports is something to work
towards. We seem to be some way off that though.