From owner-freebsd-current Tue Sep 24 22:24:04 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA29597 for current-outgoing; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 22:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from threadway.teeny.org (threadway.teeny.org [205.231.244.157]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA29547 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 22:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.teeny.org [127.0.0.1]) by threadway.teeny.org (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA04910; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 22:23:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609250523.WAA04910@threadway.teeny.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95 To: Nate Williams cc: Chuck Robey , Richard Wackerbarth , Warner Losh , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: install on {Net,Open}BSD vs install on FreeBSD In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 24 Sep 1996 22:10:45 MDT." <199609250410.WAA10368@rocky.mt.sri.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 22:23:21 -0700 From: Jason Downs Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In message <199609250410.WAA10368@rocky.mt.sri.com>, Nate Williams writes: >> of the case is based on compatibility. I've disagreed with Richard in the >> past when he was using the compatibility to move us towards SYSV without a >> strong reason, but since we ARE bsd, and the -d option IS bsd, the > >The -d option *ISN'T* BSD. It was added by J.T. in NetBSD, and when >OpenBSD took the entire NetBSD source tree over it was there as well. >I'll bet BSDi doesn't have it, and neither does Ultrix, which are also >BSD based systems. Maybe not, but it *is* SunOS, and it *is* GNU, and ... etc. -- Jason Downs (503) 256-8535 -/- (503) 952-3749 downsj@teeny.org --> teeny.org: Free Software for a Free Internet <-- http://www.teeny.org/ OpenBSD: The BSD with a soul. http://www.openbsd.org/