Bill Studenmund wrote: (after much snipping

> 
> You don't have much in the way of alternatives. A/UX is dead. There are some
> under-MacOS UNIXies around, but I've not heard how they do. Linux-mac68k
> seems to be alive, but I think we're farther ahead on having stuff work.
                    
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
Affirmative.  By any reasonable measure of utility.

> OpenBSD is around, too. But they aren't a choice if you want compiles-out-of
> -the-box source as I think if it compiles for OpenBSD (and is user code)
> it will probably (95% chance) compile for NetBSD. Said differently, if
> it didn't compile for NetBSD, I think chances are slim it'd compile for
> OpenBSD.
> 
> I really think NetBSD is still the best choice. But then I'm biased. :-)
> 
> Take care,
> 
> Bill

Sorry about this, but I just have to ask:  just what is the difference
between OpenBSD and NetBSD as far as Mac68k is concerned?  I've been
following an OpenBSD-Mac68k list (maybe the wrong one--very few posts of
any kind to it) and this one.  From what I can tell in Mac68k-land
NetBSD is where the development is happening.  OpenBSD then packages the
NetBSD-Mac68k stuff with their own spin to it, I think.  Is this a
correct view of the MacBSD world?  Does OpenBSD do any value-adding
(misguided or not) to MacBSD?

Don't want to start any religious wars or anything, so direct any FLAMES
straight to me personally.  Enquiring newbies like me who are on the
bubble trying to decide which flavor of BSD to install on their aging
(and logistically unsupportable) Macs may want to know...

                                  Thanks guys
                                  kevin