Subject: Re: resource allocation, pcmcia, isapnp, etc.
To: Warner Losh <email@example.com>
From: Gandhi woulda smacked you <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/17/1999 16:48:00
On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
# In message <199906172057.NAA04767@lestat.nas.nasa.gov> Jason Thorpe writes:
# : If he had ANY interest in having a compatible interface, you'd think
# : he'd have discussed it first.
# I disagree. I don't see why publishing (actually just checking it
# into the FreeBSD tree w/o a man page) would indicate, one way or the
# other, his desire to make things compatible. Looks like we'll have to
# agreeably disagree on this, however.
It would do both camps a world of good were he to make it compatible.
But then, if both camps were doing compatible things, there wouldn't
be such a rift between them, would there?
If anyone requests a reason as to why Windows NT is inferior to UNIX,
refer them to the process scheduler, for starters. Of course, users
don't care, and programmers try not to, even though they both should.
If that fails, reiterate that remote administration and control of a
node is a *good* thing, especially if network security is concerned.