Subject: Re: CVSup collections for a NetBSD CVS tree
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Andrew McMurry <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/03/1999 11:49:13
On Sat, May 01, 1999 at 12:06:26AM -0700, Jonathan Stone wrote:
> Not really. Modula-3's dominance of the sotware world is conspicuous
> by its absence.
If you think that is a good argument against the use of Modula-3, why
are you using NetBSD rather than Windows, or Linux?
The absence of NetBSD's dominance of the OS world is just as
conspicuous, but that doesn't stop us, so I don't see why you should
lambast someone for using his favourite language, just because it
isn't the dominant language.
Speaking as someone who has never used Modula-3 or CVSup, doesn't have
a machine on which they would run (I use the arm32 port), and who
doesn't normally agree with Greg, I think he has a good point in this
case. If the i386 and alpha people could mirror the sources by CVSup,
then there would be more bandwidth for the rest of us to use with less
efficient methods. For Greg to be able to set up a CVSup server, he
needs the support in order to be able to obtain a suitable machine.
It wont stretch the Foundations resources too far just to support his
attempts to obtain a suitable server to provide a CVSup service. I
personally would never be put off using NetBSD, just because ONE of
the "official" methods for accessing the sources is not supported for
my machine, as long as there are methods that I can use.
There is Linux binary support actually in the NetBSD source tree after
all that doesn't support Linux binaries for my platform. Does this
mean that the whole Linux emulation package should be thrown out? or
that I should abandon NetBSD because it is being i386 centrist?
If people had spent the time that they spent posting messages arguing
against spending effort on CVSup actually configuring it, then it
would be done by now, and (once the public CVS access is working) we
would be able to boast more available means for accessing our source