Andy Ruhl wrote:
> 
> On 8/30/06, Charles M. Hannum <mycroft@mit.edu> wrote:
> > The NetBSD Project has stagnated to the point of irrelevance.  It has
> 
> Let me start by saying I'm probably not qualified to reply to this
> thread, but I was never worried about making a fool out of myself
> before so here goes...
> 
> I am a former user of FreeBSD and occasional user of OpenBSD. Haven't
> had much experience with either in the last year or so.
> 
> So...
> 
> Stagnant? Yes. Irrelevance? Possibly.
> 
> But, BUT, can anyone tell me where I can get an OS that I can build
> easily from the same place to run on my NEC PDA as well as an old IBM
> PowerPC box I just happened to have sitting around and doing nothing
> else? And I'm typing this now on an AMD64 box that ran stably long
> before FreeBSD did (yes, I tested both). Nobody else can say that. Is
> it relevant? It's funny how much more relevant NetBSD's philosophy
> becomes as i386 becomes irrelevant. While the others (FreeBSD in
> particular) seemed to be scrambling for another architecture, NetBSD
> just quietly supported them without any fanfare (IA-64 excluded, but
> it's more irrelevant than NetBSD!).
> 
> There are strengths that go right down to the core of the project.
> They are still there. They won't ever be irrelevant. They just need to
> be built upon. The cleanliness, portability, and ease of use is there.
> 
> So you're probably right. A strong leader is needed to recruit people
> to complete new projects and generally keep things relevant. If it's a
> people problem, I hope someone can fix it.
> 
> Too bad the guy who used to say "I probably don't know what I'm
> talking about" isn't here to comment.
> 
> Andy

With a straight line like that, I cannot resist:

Seems like somebody is complaining that stability is the same thing
as stagnating to the point of irrelevance.

A chicken running around sans head is quite active.
Not really the same thing as productive.

Microsoft Windows goes patch-happy,
and the rate for compromised machines goes to five cents each.

I don't know what I'm talking about (no probably about it)
but there's stuff running around considerably worse.