--e7WmlSfQJTtHfSol
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 11:59:50AM +0200, Robert Cates wrote:
[...]
> Originally I saw on the NetBSD web site that the BCM5751 was supported (t=
his
> is not AMD64 specific), but later found out that the info on that page
> pertained to NetBSD-Current (an oversite on my part).  Today I went to the
> AMD64 web site and followed the link under "Future Releases" (Changes from
> 2.0 to 3.0), and found absolutely nothing for the AMD64 port.  WHY??  I
> think even if the changes for the i386 apply to the AMD64, it should be
> noted, and "AMD64" should be present.
> http://www.netbsd.org/Changes/changes-3.0.html and
> http://www.netbsd.org/Changes/changes-4.0.html

Clearly, things would be much easier if we only released software for amd64.
Well, actually, it would be much easier to not do anything.

> Next, I saw that there are changes listed already for NetBSD 4.0.  WHEN IS
> 3.0 GOING TO BE RELEASED??  I think some sort of (tentative) schedule sho=
uld
> be posted on the NetBSD web site (right on the front page), and the
> Foundation should be a bit more committed to keeping that schedule.

And you can do your part of the process by testing NetBSD 3.0_BETA.  You
have already been given pointers on how to do that.

> I've been a huge fan of NetBSD, the OS, since about 1995, but I can
> understand when one asks "Why is Linux so popular?", and it irritates me
> personally.  I would prefer to use NetBSD exclusively, but they're lagging
> in some important areas.

Linux gets much more funding, you know.  Much, much more.

> I hope you've not misunderstood my point(s), and this message gets to the
> right NetBSD members, for the good of NetBSD, and especially the AMD64 po=
rt.
> 64-bit workstation/desktop computing is the future!

64-bit computing is nothing new.

> Oh, one last thing - are the iso images available from NetBSD for the i386
> port compiled and optimized for the i586 class processors and up?  They
> should be in my opinion (or does it not matter with NetBSD), and that info
> should also be on the web site.

I don't agree with that.  Why i586 and not pentium4?  Are you implying
that we should have an i386 release _and_ an i586 release, when you're
already unsatisfied by the speed of the release process?

--=20
Quentin Garnier - cube@cubidou.net - cube@NetBSD.org
"When I find the controls, I'll go where I like, I'll know where I want
to be, but maybe for now I'll stay right here on a silent sea."
KT Tunstall, Silent Sea, Eye to the Telescope, 2004.

--e7WmlSfQJTtHfSol
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (NetBSD)

iQEVAwUBQuYxftgoQloHrPnoAQK20Af/cYt6+8o49mwLFktWDXGPJp4RQ1JN54RI
X0e5lafWhq97LSUVVmha0Ha0Y6DfPLyZTVelChPSJjuSFwW5PxHG4L8vHZlC7z/7
ySyIl+M/aOZG4s3Qccii3LFCaBPOLmkZQRUUm3CSTGZOGWGh3aBbf08Y2xatNNbJ
SYF4kqmGEMmha3AQU8t7biBeublMLKPRvK2b20MC5GRKhh3/TU/RcTaG7FOhXhfi
EGvm5PYo310Tvk38td1APPP0ZKE14rTfa/7zW96fUatLJeQ+oTuDJ0e4dwjUW1UN
JCO2LIKb2LNHIUdukOUkpenusn4VKzvGgYLDFDR+lBI5+aHnG/6Jog==
=B90h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--e7WmlSfQJTtHfSol--