On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:43:01 +0000 (UTC), Mike Cheponis <mac@wireless.com> wrote:
>           On the other hand, no, Linux does not have that _stupid_ notion of
>           having totally separate kernel development for different issues.  If
>           you want a secure BSD, you get Open BSD; if you want a usable BSD, you
>           get FreeBSD; and if you want BSD on other architectures, you get
>           NetBSD.  That is just idiotic, to have different teams worry about
>           different things.
> -----
> 
> Please, this is not "bash linux" flame bate!
> 
> What I'm noticing is: Hell, the Big Penguin himself doesn't understand that
> NetBSD doesn't sacrifice security nor usability on the altar of h/w diversity.

I'm not sure if this was said the same way yet, I think Manuel said
it, but I'll say it too.

This is indeed about par for the course when "joe unix" talks about
the BSDs, if they've even heard of them at all. This is probably the
belief of your average FreeBSD and/or OpenBSD user as well.

One thing that would be nice is some PR work in the area of NetBSD
being a good way to develop an OS. And when you start from the proper
foundation, you don't have to hype security. Useability improvements
would be great, and they are starting to happen. And as we've seen
elsewhere, performance isn't too shabby either.

If we wanted to bash Linux, we could, and we don't need Mr. Torvalds
saying this stuff to do it. There is far more fodder to choose from
than something as stupid as this.

Andy