> kim@pvv.ntnu.no wrote:
> > It has always been in a state of almost working.
> 
> For me, it works quite well. It's just for an OS that runs on several
> quite different architectures, as well as several commercial boards,
> there _aren't_ enough hours in the day.
> 

Well current has been far from stable for several months now.  Processes 
that get swapped out often segfault when they are swapped back in.  
Sometimes this can take the whole machine down; at other times the process 
may spin in the kernel and can't be killed.  This happens on both my 
machines (RiscPC and shark), so I doubt it's a hardware fault.

> > However, I actually has only one really serious critique of the RiscBSD
> > project, and that is the fact that user buildable sources has
> > never been sufficiently available, thus stopping lots of users
> > from contributing to this project.
> 
> Well, if it doesn't work and it really annoys you, *fix it*. I don't see
> why one person who feeds back some code from a hobby project should then
> exist to be a slave to the whims of hundreds (or thousands) of users on
> over 5 platforms.


Hmm, I wasn't going to make a fuss, but you've stung me into it....

NetBSD Problem Report #6357: WDC driver fails to probe discs on RISCPC
 Severity critical, Priority high:  Included patch, took over 2 months 
 to get installed.

NetBSD Problem Report #6421: Can't share interrupts on IOMD when IPLs 
differ
 Severity critical, Priority medium:  Includes patch, submitted 
 10 Nov, NO RESPONSE YET.

NetBSD Problem Report #6781: GDB 'call' command doesn't work
 Severity non-critical, Priority low:  Includes patch, submitted 10 Jan,
 NO RESPONSE YET.

The above weren't just problem reports, they INCLUDE fixes.  It's pretty 
galling when, having fixed something, there isn't even an acknowledgement. 
 If you (I mean collectively, I'm not trying to point at individuals) 
don't like something in a patch, then a message saying so (and maybe even 
why) wouldn't go amiss.

Richard.