On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 02:55:31AM -0500, Lord Isildur wrote:
> what the others have! Let's keep BSD as BSD and stop trying to copy the 
> wannabees! They dont even know what real UNIX is, and we _have_ it and 
> are tryign to copy _them_? let's keep our priorities straight. BSD is 
> _better_ and if we throw away the advantage, then sure we might win the 
> favor of the wannabees, but weve ruined the whole point of maintaining 
> Berkeley UNIX. It's NOT linux. It's NOT sysV. It's BSD. 

Has anybody ever written up a comprehensive definition of what the
meaning of "BSD" is? I mean, from time to time someone wants something and
someone else uses a counterargument of "but that isn't BSD!". What is
BSD then?

> anythign changed. What's so bad about having a simple rc script that 
> runs, and maybe runs rc.local for some local-specific stuff? how was that 
> too complicated? Now, certainly, if things are fragemnted into a million 
> pieces, then maybe it's easier to be modified by some dumb system 
> administration -tool- but i do NOT advocate dumbing BSD down to appeal to 

What's your opinion of the package system, both as a concept and the
NetBSD implementation of same?
-- 
"A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of
invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor ...
in the vicinity of the cat, then moving the laser ... in an irregular way
fascinating to cats,..." -- US patent 5443036, "Method of exercising a cat"