From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Nov  6 00:37:50 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id AAA13770
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 00:37:50 -0800
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id AAA13765
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 00:37:47 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id AAA23998; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 00:37:23 -0800
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
cc: julian@TFS.COM, markd@grizzly.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org,
        julian@ref.tfs.com
Subject: Re: NPX still broken in 2.1.0-951104-SNAP... 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 06 Nov 1995 19:23:29 +1100."
             <199511060823.TAA06163@godzilla.zeta.org.au> 
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 00:37:23 -0800
Message-ID: <23996.815647043@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> >da-man speaks the truth bruce..
> >just because there is a BETTER solution doesn't mean we should
> >have extra problems in 2.1 for no reason....
> 
> What extra problems?  We'll have exactly the same problems as
> in all previous versions of 386BSD and FreeBSD.
> 
> Bruce

I think that's kind of the point Mark's making.. :-)

FWIW, I think the argument for "greater compatibility" should win out
over all others anyway.  If SCO, Linux, Unixware, Solaris and
god-knows-what else all do it this way, then we're just being
pig-headed not to follow precedent and in any comparison people might
make, it won't be FreeBSD that's lauded for taking the idealist's
stand that thrust it in a different direction.

					Jordan