[ Note, I'm not trying to start a flame war, and I didn't think you were,
  either.. I'm just in the mood for some friendly debate ... just one of
  those days, and writing a message like this with a big smile goes a
  long way to widing down for some reason :-) --thorpej ]

On Tue, 12 May 1998 02:05:59 -0400 (EDT) 
 "Christopher R. Bowman" <crb@ChrisBowman.com> wrote:

 > but I have XFree86 on my FreeBSD box and as I understand it NetBSDs X
 > is based on XFree sources.

Um, ok, now I'm really confused :-)

XFree86 is a totally separate project from both FreeBSD and NetBSD ... am
I just reading more into your statement than is really there?

 > 3) Their CVSup source distribution system really made it easy to examine
 > the source in a way that sup doesn't.
 > 
 > 4) It was easy to get on a CD instead of downloading over a modem at
 > 9600 baud.
 > 
 > There is no debate about this as this was my PERCEPTION, correct or not,
 > thats what it was.  Having used FreeBSD and NetBSD/Mac for several years now,
 > I would say that 1 is no longer an issue for me.  2 has obviously been
 > rectified, but I still think that 3 needs correction.  People might
 > suggest that I just sup every day and import into my own CVS tree, but
 > to my mind that just isn't the same.  I like being able to check out a
 > particular TAG and know that I am getting the same thing as everybody else.
 > I like being able to see the complete history of a file, and all the changes
 > that were made I really wish that there were a "one true CVS tree"
 > available to the unwashed masses.

I'd like to be able to address (3), too... but this horse is now just a
pile of rotting pulp.

For the record (and, this is my personal opinion based on my interpretations
of the licenses in question, and not necessarily the opinion of NASA or
of my employer, MRJ Technology Solutions, Inc.) ... I think that the
"anonymous CVS" and similar methods of source distribution are actually
pushing the limits or actually in violation of even the UCB license.  I
think the reason they still exist is because no one has (yet) bothered to
take legal action against parties which distribute sources with that method.

...but I digress.

 > 
 > Now, let me reply to some of Jasons comments more directly. Jason sais above:
 > 
 > >                      I vastly prefer NetBSD over FreeBSD because NetBSD
 > >tends to do lots of things Right from the get-go, with an emphasis on
 > >clean design and implementation (one of the reasons we can run on so many
 > >platforms!).
 > 
 > I object to this comment with out more support, I don't see that NetBSD is
 > that much better than FreeBSD, I don't see "things Right from the get-go"

...heh, gee, even the FreeBSD developers think so ... in fact, Julian
Elischer said that to me _in person_ on Sunday (when I happened to see
him in downtown Mountain View after I had dinner with some friends :-)

The success we've had porting to multiple platforms is a _direct_ result
of making sure things were done right Very Early On.

 > that aren't in FreeBSD, and the way it is said it makes it seems as if
 > FreeBSD isn't concerned about clean design and implementation.  I think
 > their work towards DEVFS, SLICES, softupdates, and  their VM system as well
 > as terry's work towards filesystem cleanup is good.

(1) DEVFS is a fine idea... if you can solve all of the problems associated
    with it... and, well, have you looked at the implementation they have?

(2) Slices - they have problems, too... in concept they're simple, but
    I have ... issues with the implementation they have, and have
    actually been bitten by the somewhat broken semantics of FreeBSD
    slices in the recent past.

(3) softupdates is actually Kirk's work :-)  The glue will be going into
    NetBSD soon, as well, and a "softupdates" kit will be made available.
    Frank van der Linden has been testing the daylights out of it for a
    while, and even found some bugs in the softupdates code itself.

(4) VM system - we have UVM.  Chuck Cranor did a new VM system to
    address the problems in the Mach VM system, rather than continuing
    to tweak the Mach VM system... in many ways, this was the Right Thing,
    and very typical of the NetBSD way of doing things .. "If it sucks,
    start from scratch and do it right!"

(5) Oh geez, what is Terry up to now?  :-)

Basically, I think FreeBSD has a lot of fine ideas, but I wouldn't put
mission-critical jobs on that code.

 > Before I close, let me add lastly, but surely not least, a heart felt
 > thank you to all the members of the NetBSD and FreeBSD teams for their
 > excellent work.  And particularly for Jason for whom I have great
 > respect admiration and apprecation for all of his work.

*blush*  thank you for the compliment!

Jason R. Thorpe                                       thorpej@nas.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center                            Home: +1 408 866 1912
NAS: M/S 258-5                                       Work: +1 650 604 0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035                             Pager: +1 650 428 6939