>  It also costs me something if I am required to change an existing 
> installation, if the Amiga port diverges too far from m68k as an ideal, or
> if it adds anything to the system that I am not going to use.
> 
	Just a reminder, NetBSD is NOT nailed down yet. ANY part of it
	could change drastically with NO notice. If you or anybody
	else is assuming there is something rock solid about NetBSD then
	I suggest you prepare yourself for the inevitable rude awakening...

	Already, some non-m68k change was made to the kernel recently and
	the m68k ports lost debugger capability because of it... Expect
	more of the same as time goes on. That's just the way it is.

>  SVR4 is not the work of Sun, and Sun has released only a SVr4-like
> operating system, which has no advantages for any of my machines, due to 
> the greatly increased overhead of Solaris.
> 
	Actually, most of SVR4, as opposed to SVR4.2, was actually "ghost"
	written by Sun. They had a major impact on almost everything.

	By the way, see back issues of the Sun group to find out why the
	overhead argument of Solaris is an outdated falicy. 2.4 is faster
	the 4.1.3/1.1.1B and 2.3 is about on par once you get all the
	patches in place. Since you seem to state this as a fact I have
	reason to suspect your other conclusions... Alot of the falicy
	was due to ignorance of Solaris/SVR4 and thus improper porting and/or
	tuning decisions.

	Anyways, the main point of my message is the make clear the NetBSD
	is in no way, shape or form nailed down and stable. If you are
	expecting/assuming it to be so then you are in for a nasty
	surprise, probably in the near future.

	NetBSD is not some sort of commercial venture, it's a public effort
	across multiple platforms. Problems can be introduced from many
	places at any time with no obvious reason for sudden malfunction. Be
	aware of this before commiting to NetBSD.

		-Rob