Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 15:57:13 -0500 (EST) From: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu> To: "Charles M. Hannum" <mycroft@gnu.ai.mit.edu> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, Jason Thorpe <thorpej@netbsd.org>, www@freebsd.org, core@netbsd.org Subject: Re: Related Operating System Projects Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.970205154348.2309F-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu> In-Reply-To: <c1k6807fbbi.fsf@melange.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5 Feb 1997, Charles M. Hannum wrote: > "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> writes: > > Well, I do beg to differ slightly - it is strongly *based* on NetBSD, > > It branched off of NetBSD. Development on both systems has diverged > significantly, to the point where saying it's `based on NetBSD' is, > quite frankly, more of a slimy marketing trick than a reality. I'd just like to point out that the sentence in question was written at the branch point when the differences between the two were trivial. I, as the author of the sentence, deny any slimy intent. However, the half-life of Truth on the Internet is pretty darn short and if you think the statement reflects badly on NetBSD, I have no objections to changing it. Is it safe/acceptable to say that (Free|Net|Open)BSD are all 4.4BSD derived and leave it at that? The respective web sites can provide their own accounts of the "Truth". -john
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.95.970205154348.2309F-100000>