<< My comments here are very i386 & sparc centric >>
	<< apologies but I can only speak for what I use  >>

	Having a FreeBSD, NetBSD, & OpenBSD is unneccessary duplication
	of effort. But for various reasons thats where we find ourselves.

	That doesn't mean we should stay there. In the short term we could
	get some people looking at getting simpler things such as 
	/usr/src/usr.bin in sync, and parts of the kernel tree, with each OS
	pulling in anything it may lack from the others.

	Ok, we're going to have some points where groups will each insist
	that their version is right, but if we get to the point where as
	a matter of course changes put in one tree will get added to the
	others we have helped a lot at reducing duplication of effort.

	Longer term.. who knows - but we should try.

		David

On Tue, 26 Dec 1995, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:

> No insult to the OpenBSD folks intended, but my impression of that
> project is that it's supposed to be some sort of "reference library"
> of code for general use, not a place to send "end users."  In point of
> fact, I'm not even sure how useful as a "reference library" it's going
> to be, given that none of us seem to have much interest in looking at
> it.. :-)
> 
	All together ``NMH'' :)
	OpenBSD was started for various political reasons, and is there
	for developers & users alike. With anoncvs it seems like a _better_
	place for developers than anything.

	A version of *BSD thats pulling in all the fixes from NetBSD, plus
	some from FreeBSD, plus some of its own... hmm, doesnt sound like
	a bad place to be sent myself...

> My advice would be to stick with NetBSD until they get the
> bounce-buffering problem worked out or go to FreeBSD.  Both systems
> have the *infrastructure* required for answering user questions,
> responsing to features and bug reports, several books on the way that
> will be hitting the bookstores this spring, etc and so forth.
>
	OpenBSD has an infrastucture consumate with its age. As far as I
	know all three systems have developers & users answering questions.
	OpenBSD has fewer people answering questions... it also has fewer
	people asking them! Check again in a while...
	As to differences for users, apart from the name change & some
	extra facilities it feels like NetBSD to me :)
> 
> All of those things aren't particularly important to software
> historians and archivists, I'll agree, but of major importance to
> anyone actually trying to run a system for day-to-day tasks.  I think
> the end-user base is bewildered enough already and needs another "user
> oriented BSD" like Linux needs another 12 distributions.
> 
> In short, if OpenBSD would like to continue pitching themselves as a
> programmer's resources, then I think they're making the best of an
> unfortunate NetBSD scism and I'm inclined to say "pax - let's make the
> best of it."  If they're trying to fragment the end-user base of BSD
> even further then we're all being done a major disservice given that
> resources are already stretched wafer thin as it is.  We're supposed
> to be "competing" with the 900 pound gorilla that Linux has become,
> not one another!
> 
	You want OpenBSD to pitch itself as a resource you dont think
	anyone will use? scratch that - I'm not trying to start a flame
	war here. OpenBSD is a freely available BSD which aims make its
	own changes in addition to pulling in the best from outside
	sources - NetBSD & FreeBSD included.
	Can we try building bridges not walls?

> The users can help too, of course, given that they always get the
> final "vote" in such things anyway.  Don't bail out on the two OSes
> who have done so much good BSD work over the last 2 1/2 years and are
> now starting to get really good - help us make them better!  There has
> already been a rather tragic replication of effort, and I see no need
> to make it worse!
>
	The users will pick what serves them best. If I want to run the
	same BSD on my sparcs & i386 boxes, and I need bounce buffer support
	I go with OpenBSD. The fact I lose nothing from NetBSD, gain some
	features & better developers access, and feel happier there makes
	me stay.

	That feels like me knocking NetBSD, but its not. OpenBSD is 90+%
	NetBSD plus some stuff. So when I say OpenBSD is
	cool I mean ``all the work & effort that NetBSD people have
	put in is cool, as is the extra that OpenBSD people have done''.

> NetBSD resources:
> 	http://www.netbsd.org
> 
> FreeBSD resources:
> 	http://www.freebsd.org
>
  OpenBSD resources:
	http://www.openbsd.org
> 
> P.S.  Yes, I have talked about merging the two groups again to even
> better serve the "BSD cause" but I guess that too much water has now
> passed under the bridge for that to be practical, given the
> exceedingly luke-warm response I've received.  Ah well!
> 
	Maybe a OpenBSD -> FreeBSD merger is more likely?
	Anyone have any old grudges there they want to wave around,
	or is OpenBSD too recent? :)

		David