So, the little flame war about stability is:

* obnoxious.  This list is not for rampant flaming about `why NetBSD
  sucks'.  It's for having discussion of technical topics related to
  NetBSD.  If you are unable or unwilling to follow the charter, you
  are welcome to not post to the list.

* misguided.  None of us are going to stop working on NetBSD or switch
  to Linux because of some random flamer.

* deceitful.  Linux 2.0 doesn't even run on the ARM.  Comparing
  stability of an old NetBSD release to the latest development Linux
  kernel in at *best* unfair.  The fact is that I use a Shark --
  running NetBSD -- as my desktop machine, running X, emacs, xv,
  xmame, teTeX, and a host of other software.  The last time I
  rebooted it was slightly over a month ago.  I also know how many
  bugs there were in gcc and egcs, which are NOT fixed in the Linux
  distribution.

  Not to mention the usual problems with Linux source.  Having tried
  to build a Linux system from source, I know quite well that it's a
  *Hell* of lot harder than building NetBSD -- even if you have to
  apply a single patch to the NetBSD source tree.

So, in short, please can this discussion and contribute something
positive instead.