Mirko Thiesen writes:
> Herb Peyerl wrote:
> > 
> > That would be moderately childish.
> 
> Although you're right, Herb, I think it's probably an idea that might
> work out anyway. At least we could keep it in mind as some kind of last
> measure we can take.

NetBSD (as a project) _should never_ be in the "or else" busy, IMHO.
(and I am just a happy user, not speaking for the project, etc, etc)

> But I'm still a bit concerned about the reaseons they have for
> discontinuing the NetBSD clients, as it can't be "only" the lack of
> users. They already have got a 2.0 client for BeOS, and honestly, is
> there anybody out there who knows of someone who actually *has* (I don't
> even say "uses" here!) BeOS? Maybe someone should really contact the
> SETI people and ask them for an explanation ... in a polite manner of
> course ...

Huh, I would say that is probably the truth.  I happen to *own* a copy
of BeOS though.  I had to have *something* that could use the second
processor on my ABIT BP6!  Well ok, I wanted to check it out anyway.

I agree though, just doesn't seem like there are very many BeOS people
out there. :)  Still, except on this mailing list, it doesn't seem like there
are very many NetBSD people out there either.

The rc5 thing was cool for a year or so, but lately I get real tired of
mucking with buffers on my "test" machines, and without a NetBSD personal
proxy... I have pretty much nuked the clients.

-Andrew
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Gillham                            | This space left blank
gillham@whirlpool.com                     | inadvertently.
I speak for myself, not for my employer.  | Contact the publisher.