From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Nov  6 10:35:29 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id KAA06978
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 10:35:29 -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 KAA06970
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 10:35:26 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA00646; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 10:34:47 -0800
To: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey)
cc: hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD Hackers)
Subject: Re: ideas from netbsd 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 06 Nov 1995 16:00:28 +0100."
             <199511061500.QAA13791@allegro.lemis.de> 
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 10:34:47 -0800
Message-ID: <643.815682887@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> That may be true most of the time, but consider my situation.  I have
> machines running both BSD/386 and FreeBSD, and the software is

You're arguing two different arguments.  BSD/OS compatiblity was
never in doubt as a goal - there's a REASON to put the work into
that.  For NetBSD, I still don't see the reason.

Don't forget, this isn't a company and we don't go down an extensive
checklist of each and every function before release - if a feature
isn't used, it rots and you might as well have not bothered in the
first place.  It'd be nice if we could have such thorough regression
testing, but we do the best with the resources we have.  I don't see
that NetBSD support would stay working for very long considering that
most people would never use it.

						Jordan