On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, John Kelly wrote:

> >> I'm not in favor of using any version beyond 1.6.X, due to
> >> stability concerns.
>
> >What stability concerns?
>
> Kernel size doubled, gcc 3.X is a hog that ought to be slaughtered,
> threads and SMP are in developmental transition.  That's not what I
> have in mind for a stable server.  Not to mention the bad reports I
> have read about NetBSD 2.X problems ...

Your original email mentioned Debian Linux as the alternative.

GCC 3.3.5 I believe is the default GCC with Debian (but like Debian,
NetBSD via pkgsrc has alternative versions).

As for kernel sizes, my Linux kernels on my Linux boxes grew from around
534380 bytes to 1279069 bytes and even 2220021 bytes -- and using many
modules. 2.2M is close to the 2.3 MB and 2.6 MB kernels I see on some
NetBSD 2.x boxes. My NetBSD 1.6.x kernels are around 3.2 MB -- so
depending on the needs, a NetBSD 2.x kernel can be smaller that a NetBSD
1.6.x kernel. (And like Debian Linux, you can have custom kernels too.
Although I don't know how small NetBSD 2.x kernels get.)

The Linux kernels, of course, are in "developmental transition" too.
Although the default Debian Linux kernels only have minor updates just
like the NetBSD 2.x only has minor updates. The real development work --
or big changes -- are done on -current (for NetBSD and unstable for
Debian).

 Jeremy C. Reed

 	  	 	 open source, Unix, *BSD, Linux training
	  	 	 http://www.pugetsoundtechnology.com/