Subject: Re: Resource needs
To: Chris Wareham <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Johnny Billquist <bqt@Update.UU.SE>
Date: 04/02/2005 01:14:31
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Chris Wareham wrote:
> Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 02:04:17PM +0100, Chris Wareham wrote:
> > > As a result, I'd suggest that comparing Linux 2.2.x with its relatively
> > > modest feature set to NetBSD 2.0 is a little unfair.
> > You mean, the kernel of NetBSD 2.0 should be compared to 2.4.x rather?
> > Or 2.6.x?
> Linux 2.4.x would be a fair comparison for the kernel in NetBSD 2.0. If
> I'd suggest that Linux 2.6.x should be compared to the kernel in NetBSD
> -current, as they're both unstable development versions.
Really? I thought Linux used odd numbers for unstable development, and
even number for stable releases? But I might be confused...
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: email@example.com || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol