> There is a significant performance difference between the two
> OSes, and to discount FreeBSD/Alpha as being a NetBSD kernel is
> not accurate.

Okay, everybody get out their rulers.

John, I've never seen any honest benchmark numbers for FreeBSD/i386
vs. NetBSD/i386, much less for FreeBSD/Alpha vs. NetBSD/Alpha.   I
doubt you have either, or they'd be up on your web site and you'd be
pointing us to the URL.   Everything I've seen suggests that the two
operating systems perform quite similarly.   NetBSD had a problem with
thrashing with Mach VM in high-memory-consumption situations, but that
problem has been corrected with the introduction of UVM, which means
that your old 3X number is now obsolete, and even when it was valid,
it was valid for a corner case that didn't matter to many users.

Occasionally, when I'm feeling discouraged about NetBSD, I consider
defecting to the FreeBSD camp.   Thankfully, when that happens,
somebody from the FreeBSD camp usually has the courtesy to remind me
why I don't want to do that.   *Un* fortunately, it's not like things
are much better in the NetBSD camp - it's just that the software is
more to my liking.

I know there's a lot of bad blood between various NetBSD people and
various FreeBSD people.  I'm sure that everybody can point to some
rotten thing somebody from the other camp said that polarized them,
but frankly, I think the whole thing is pretty childish.  If we'd stop
reinventing each other's wheels and move on, we'd probably be able to
accomplish great things.  As it stands, we just look like a bunch of
drunken idiots bickering over scraps in the street while wealthy
burghers from Microsoft look on in disgust and amusement, or walk past
us with their eyes averted.

			       _MelloN_