-----Original Message-----
From: netbsd-users-owner@netbsd.org
[mailto:netbsd-users-owner@netbsd.org]On Behalf Of Thomas Mueller
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 9:55 AM
To: netbsd-users@netbsd.org
Subject: RE: NetBSD is not Linux


> > Linux has many distributions yes, what makes that an anarchy exactly ?
> Installation programs vary among Linux distributions, and package
management
> varies: Red Hat .rpm, Slackware .tgz, Debian .deb, others?  Some
third-party
> software in binary form works on only one or several distributions but not
all.
> Installation programs vary from down-to-earth text to Windows-like.  Some
> installation programs don't support 486 CPU even though the underlying
Linux
> could run on 486.  But FreeBSD looks like FreeBSD, NetBSD looks like
NetBSD, and
> I presume OpenBSD looks like OpenBSD.

It's true that installation programs are not consistent in terms of look and
feel but the basic operations that you have to do are pretty much the same.
But the fact that each distribution has it's own particuliarities doesn't
necessarly mean anarchy. It can also mean choice. It's just a matter of how
you look at it.
Sure NetBSD looks like NetBSD and OpenBSD looks like OpenBSD but does NetBSD
look like OpenBSD ? Is the problem with Linux that it has one name and
diffrent looks ?  If so then just add the distribution in front of the name
and no confusion can arise. 
All kidding aside I just don't see the "anarchy" issue as a big deal and it
doesn't seem to be a problem in Linux's market acceptance.

Something I'm really curious about are the diffrences feature wise (POSIX
compliance for example) betweed Linux, OpenBSD, NetBSD. I see a lot of
discussions about the licenses (which is fine), but I haven't seen anything
in relation to the OS's feature set.

Steph