Hank said:
> 
> On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, John S. Dyson wrote:
> 
> >Perry E. Metzger said:
> <snip about flying off the handle>
> >
> >> 
> >> HOWEVER, my point still stands. I believe claims of improved
> >> performance when I see reproduceable benchmarks. I believe claims of
> >> portability when I see a port. I *know* that NetBSD's code ports well, 
> >> because we spent years beating on it until it would. FreeBSD hasn't
> >> finished one port from its original architecture. I would like to see
> >> justification for claims of performance and portability -- not
> >> theoreticals.
> >> 
> >Does that mean that the FreeBSD development should move forward,
> >and then when we  have reproduceable benchmarks on FreeBSD, then
> >you can choose to adopt our code, or leave it be?
> 
> Not nessiacrly.  NetBSD and FreeBSD have different goals.  FreeBSD strives
> to be the best for x86 platforms.  NetBSD strives to be good on every
> possibal platform.  Although we would like to be best on all of them
> reality hits, and once in a while we choose to be "less" in some way on
> some platform so that we are portable to everything.  This is what
> everyone was saying in the flame fest that we have all seen.  Different
> goal, so we do have to be different.  
>
FreeBSD will also have the Alpha as a priority.  It will happen,
and there is no reason debate it.

> 
> Remember that FreeBSD still only supports one architecture.  While it has
> undergone some revisions over the years, there are some BIG portibility
> problems that we will uncover that won't effect FreeBSD.  Do not let
> NetBSD's goals prevent you from moving forward.  Do not let a desire to
> move forward distract you from the issues NetBSD discovers - they may hit
> you in next years model.
> 
I agree, but arrogance is a feature that I hope that FreeBSD never
adopts from NetBSD.

-- 
John                  | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
dyson@freebsd.org     | it just makes you look stupid,
jdyson@nc.com         | and it irritates the pig.