> cc: port-i386@netbsd.org
> X-Face: "Evs"_GpJ]],xS)b$T2#V&{KfP_i2`TlPrY$Iv9+TQ!6+`~+l)#7I)0xr1>4hfd{#0B4
> 	WIn3jU;bql;{2Uq%zw5bF4?%F&&j8@KaT?#vBGk}u07<+6/`.F-3_GA@6Bq5gN9\+s;_d
> 	gD\SW #]iN_U0 KUmOR.P<|um5yP<ea#^"SJK;C*}fMI;Mv(aiO2z~9n.w?@\>kEpSD@*e`
> Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 00:40:26 -0500
> From: Ken Hornstein <kenh@cmf.nrl.navy.mil>
> Sender: owner-port-i386@netbsd.org
> Precedence: list
> X-Loop: port-i386@NetBSD.ORG
> 
> However, I'm not sure that's what will happen.  I see new people appear
> occasionally on current-users, new people join core (and some people leave,
> alas), new stuff gets integrated; it's obvious that NetBSD development isn't
> dead by a long shot.  The whole OpenBSD business saddens me, moreso because
> it's mostly ego-driven on both sides (but I wish them the best of luck).

I also don't understand why people are saddened by the OpenBSD
business, particularly since the OpenBSD people are tracking all the
NetBSD changes with only about 1-3 days of delay.

NetBSD is a great operating system which benefits many people.
OpenBSD takes advantage of all the good work that went into NetBSD,
and lets even more people take advantage of it by supporting even more
hardware and providing other little benefits like anonymous CVS access
and bug fixes for problems that don't effect enough people for a
NetBSD fix to be worth it.

What's the downside to this?  In the case of FreeBSD and NetBSD, you
could argue that the two source trees have diverged so much that they
don't look like each other and certain features you might want would
require double the effort if you wanted them in both OS's.  But this
is definitely not the case with OpenBSD.  Improvements put into NetBSD
will make it into OpenBSD.  I just compiled and booted an OpenBSD
kernel on a NetBSD-1.1A machine, and everything seemed to work,
including ps, netstat, etc.  Fantastic.  What's the problem?

I am very happy at the prospect of running a NetBSD-like operating
system on my 32 Mb ISA 486 with an Adaptek 1542 card.  I never would
have had that opportunity if it weren't for OpenBSD.  FreeBSD and
Linux don't (or maybe didn't in the case of Linux?--I don't care to
debate this point) provide as good multi-platform support, and were
different and incompatible enough that I really didn't want to change
over to them.

Are you saying its a bad thing that I'm finally able to run a
NetBSD-like operating system on my own hardware?  Are you saddened by
the fact that life is made better for other people?  The patch on
which OpenBSD bounce buffers are based was submitted to NetBSD on
September 19th.  The approach was not clean and machine-independent
enough for NetBSD.

The fact is, NetBSD has goals which imply certain standards, and
OpenBSD obviously has a different set of goals and standards.  While
the two groups of developers pursue their individual goals, there is
nothing stopping them from taking advantage of each other's efforts.
OpenBSD already integrates most of NetBSD's changes.  Moreover, given
OpenBSD's anonymous CVS access, NetBSD could easily do the same.

I am very grateful to both the NetBSD and OpenBSD projects.  It is
only because both of these projects exist that I will be able to run a
high-quality multi-platform operating system both on my hardware and
the machines I have at work.

David