>If I want to use that application then I will try to find a
>platform that it's supported on -- it's just that simple.

That's pretty ass-backwards if you're choosing a whole machine just for one
application.


>I don't think that's quite the issue you claim it is.  Besides, the hard
>work is already being done by M3 fanatics.  NetBSD wouldn't necessarily
>*rely* on CVSup any more than it relies on any other third-party
>package, such as emacs for example.

Ummmm, you don't find there to be a difference between a text editor and
the method used to collect cvs repo crap? If & when NetBSD decides to use
CVSup, a fair amount of able users will switch over to using it. If it
later breaks, many ppl may have no other way set up to do that.

>Well, until someone rewrites CVSup in C we'll just have to use the M3
>implementation on the platforms where it is supported.

Or (as the argument here goes) the other option is not to use it.

>In any case, we're not talking about the basic OS functionality -- we're
>only talking about one highly specialized and narrowly used application.

I dunno about narrowly-used...certainly highly-specialized, though :)

>Get off your high horses and try it before you put it down.  Don't tell
>me that *I* can't use something just because *you* don't want to, or
>can't use it.

On the same note, you're trying to tell them that *they* have to do the
work of running it. As someone else pointed out, it's not necesssary for
NetBSD to officially adopt it. Anyone can set up their own server for it,
grabbing the sources from official channels & redistributing them with
CVSup.

>If you don't want to use CVSup, then just get out of the way.

Works for me :). I think that the gist of the discussion (against CVSup) is
just that they don't want to waste "official" resources...I don't think
anyone actually objects to individuals running it or "packaging" it.


>What I was getting at has more to do with the fact that I don't just
>install and use it -- I hack around on the insides sometimes too, and I
>find lots of differences in the degree to which NetBSD works with some
>hardware, and lots of little differences in the way various issues and
>problems are tackled in the port-specific parts of the systems.

I think that about my only problem going between my two NetBSD
architectures is the fact that my one is NetBSD/alpha, so I have to make
sure that any (non-package) code brought in is 64-bit friendly or I get
lotsa alignment warnings & it slows down.

>I guess the only glaring user-level difference I can point at off the
>top of my head is the degree to which sysinst is or isn't supported
>across the board....

I've so far been unimpressed with using sysinst personally on the alpha. I
tried using it for an upgrade, & ended up having to redo it manually anyway.



Dave wrote:
>Perhaps you should try the arm32 port on a processor other than the stongarm.
>Baldness beckons ;~)


Hmmm, gets me thinking...anyone ever try getting NetBSD running on a Newton
with the 175 Mhz StrongARM?


Brian wrote:
>but you'd also open the vast world of Modula-3 software

Hmm, I didn't know there was one ;-)



Mike
Bikers don't *DO* taglines.