Robert Cates wrote:
> 
> I'm so excited about 64-bit processors on the desktop, and the AMD64
> processors in particular, that I finally scraped some money together to buy
> some hardware and installed NetBSD/AMD64 2.0.2 on it.  Everything went well
> except for no support for the BCM5751 NIC.  I can accept the fact that the
> NetBSD Foundation cannot pump out new stable/formal releases of NetBSD
> everytime a new hardware device is put on the market, but can't the NetBSD
> Foundation speed up the releases just a bit more, without someone having to
> go to NetBSD-Current(?)...
> 
> Originally I saw on the NetBSD web site that the BCM5751 was supported (this
> is not AMD64 specific), but later found out that the info on that page
> pertained to NetBSD-Current (an oversite on my part).  Today I went to the
> AMD64 web site and followed the link under "Future Releases" (Changes from
> 2.0 to 3.0), and found absolutely nothing for the AMD64 port.  WHY??  I
> think even if the changes for the i386 apply to the AMD64, it should be
> noted, and "AMD64" should be present.
> http://www.netbsd.org/Changes/changes-3.0.html and
> http://www.netbsd.org/Changes/changes-4.0.html
> 
> Next, I saw that there are changes listed already for NetBSD 4.0.  WHEN IS
> 3.0 GOING TO BE RELEASED??  I think some sort of (tentative) schedule should
> be posted on the NetBSD web site (right on the front page), and the
> Foundation should be a bit more committed to keeping that schedule.
> 

NetBSD 3.0 is scheduled to be released in a month or so
(http://kerneltrap.org/node/5069). I've been running snapshots of it
from ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD-daily/ for a while, and not
encountered any problems with it.

> I've been a huge fan of NetBSD, the OS, since about 1995, but I can
> understand when one asks "Why is Linux so popular?", and it irritates me
> personally.  I would prefer to use NetBSD exclusively, but they're lagging
> in some important areas.
> 

Linux has a very high profile, and as a result it is getting a lot of
backing from big corporate entities like IBM. This popularity has
snowballed in recent years, which I put down to the non-technical nature
of those reporting on computing issues in the mainstream press. They had
enough trouble getting their heads around Linux and free software in
general, so expecting them to understand the subtle differences between
Unix-like operating systems is difficult. It is a shame, as I'm becoming
increasingly disenchanted with Linux. If a native JDK was available from
Sun for NetBSD i386 or better still, AMD64, then I wouldn't hesitate to
use it NetBSD on the webservers at work.

> I hope you've not misunderstood my point(s), and this message gets to the
> right NetBSD members, for the good of NetBSD, and especially the AMD64 port.
> 64-bit workstation/desktop computing is the future!
> 

I expect the pace of development for devices that are only found on
AMD64 machines to pick up as the machines themselves become more
mainstream. This is only natural considering how much NetBSD development
is done in peoples free time on machines they have the most ready access
to. I for one am looking forward to widespread support for AMD64
machines, as I would love to have an Opteron laptop.

> Oh, one last thing - are the iso images available from NetBSD for the i386
> port compiled and optimized for the i586 class processors and up?  They
> should be in my opinion (or does it not matter with NetBSD), and that info
> should also be on the web site.
> 

The name of the IA32 port - i386 - suggests that the ISO images are
optimised for the venerable 80386. For most peoples purposes, this is
probably OK as they aren't pushing their machines hard enough to really
need the small performance improvements that come from optimising for
the i586. There again, there are plenty of Gentoo Linux users who seem
happy to have their machines constantly compiling just so they can
build everything with wacky compiler flags ...

Chris
-- 
One is not superior merely because one sees the world as odious.
                    Chateaubriand (1768-1848)