> >In other words, if that was their excuse, I'd say, "They ported linux
> >because somebody sold them on linux and now they're trying to justify
> >it after the fact."  They may have other, more valid reasons, but that
> >statement about why they didn't use NetBSD is simply nonsense.
> 
> I don't remember anyone saying 'why didn't they use NetBSD instead?'

Regardless of whether that was asked, that _was_ the question that was
answered.

To quote Michael Richardson's mail (that I responded to):

>  Corel ported Linux to their Netwinder because of issues with 
>the way NetBSD/StrongARM relied on the the OpenFirmware.

The implication there is that if NetBSD didn't have those alleged
"issues" (which are nonexistant), they would have (or might have)
ported NetBSD.

My point is that that implication and the following statement (the
claim that if you wanted to make NetBSD go, you'd need to port OFW or
do some unstated amount of additional work for firmware than if you
were porting linux from scratch to the bare metal), are ridiculous.


cgd