>But at the same
>time, they weren't thinking in the same terms which I'm accustomed to
>seeing from most of the NetBSD developers.

They weren't NetBSD developers.

>This argument is long tired, but I don't see it as pointless.  I'll
>refrain from saying anything more on the subject beyond my opinion that...
>If someone is intending to write a good piece of software, it's best to do
>"the right thing" and implement it in a way which maximizes the number of
>systems which can benefit from it.

I dunno if the orig author was a FreeBSD developer, but as it's used there,
I'll assume he uses it...if so, then he DID write it in a way which
maximizes the number of systems which can benefit from it _for his OS_.
Remember, if you're writing WinNT software, you don't have to write it so
that it can maximize the PowerPC G3 chip. With NT you also only have to
deal with alpha & i386. I can't blame the author for being
shortsighted...he's just not a NetBSDer, so NetBSD's goals aren't his goals.

Mike
Bikers don't *DO* taglines.