Johan A.van Zanten wrote:

>Seth Kurtzberg <seth@cql.com> wrote:
>
>>That is again _not_ to imply that there aren't problems, and that they 
>>don't need to be fixed.  It is merely to say that you have good people 
>>already expending maximum effort, and, in my experience, NetBSD 
>>releases, initially, are of much higher quality than other operating 
>>systems I've used, including expensive SVR4 releases from Sun or HP.
>>    
>
> I want to second this.  
>

I wanna third this.  Due to timing issues at my work we have installed
NetBSD v2.0 RC4 as an infrastructure router/firewall, and it does the
job without missing a beat.  Because it is in a remote office, it has
also handled being untimely powered off without a clean shutdown.

    <machine_name> (NetBSD) $ uname -a
    NetBSD <machine_name> 2.0_RC4 NetBSD 2.0_RC4 (GENERIC) #0: Tue Oct
    12 15:47:49 CEST 2004
 
tecneeq@ascent:/home/tecneeq/builds/NetBSD-2.0_RC4-sparc64-obj/sys/arch/sparc64/compile/GENERIC
    sparc64
    <machine_name> (NetBSD) $ uptime
    10:38PM  up 59 days, 14:31, 1 user, load averages: 0.56, 0.63, 0.59

Ideally I would like to get it up to STABLE, but replacing it would be a
bit of a mission at the moment.  Other priorities and all that.

I will mention we did have some problems running Squid as a transparent
proxy on this machine, and it may be related to the threading and
swapping issues being discussed on this thread.  At this stage Squid is
not running (transparent proxying is not a must have).

As a brief piece of advocacy for NetBSD v2.0 on SPARC64 it is running 
RAID1 filesystems, including swap.  It is also routing between 3
networks, firewalling those networks off as required, and providing DNS
(chrooted), NTP.

Great job all !!!!

catch ya
Phil J