I hate to run this thread into the ground, but I think that the
user-bashing needs a response.

Yes, the average user is willing to run Microsnot operating systems
even though they crash a lot, and the average user has no idea that
they can run NetBSD and win massively.

However, the reason for this is *not* that the average user doesn't
care about system crashes.   Believe me, I know a lot of average
users, and they complain bitterly about their systems locking up
several times a day.   The only problem is that they don't have any
choice.   Does Lotus 1-2-3 run on NetBSD?   No.   Does Frame run on
NetBSD/i386?   No.   Does MS Word run on NetBSD?   No.

This is why the average user doesn't use NetBSD.  It has absolutely
*nothing* to do with reliability.  If I could tell a user what kind of
machine to buy, hand them a CD, tell them to boot it and answer all
the questions, and that user could then have a complete NetBSD install
that could then run Word for Windoze and the like more reliably than
they run under stock Windows 3.1, I think a lot of users would be
interested.   But only if I could tell them that it was better -
they'd have no motivation to switch from one lame OS to another.

I know NetBSD doesn't do that now, but I think that's one possible
future for it, and one I would certainly like to see.  And frankly, we
don't need to get there *before* Win95.  We just need to get there.
MicroSnot is structurally incapable of producing a reliable product
because of the way they hoard their source code, so we really have all
the time in the world... :')

			       _MelloN_