From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Feb 26 22:01:07 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id WAA00925 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 26 Feb 1995 22:01:07 -0800 Received: from is1.hk.super.net (jbeukema@is1.hk.super.net [202.14.67.232]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id WAA00915 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 1995 22:00:58 -0800 Received: by is1.hk.super.net id AA11270 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org); Mon, 27 Feb 1995 13:59:48 +0800 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 13:59:47 +0800 (HKT) From: John Beukema To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , ernie@tinny.eis.net.au, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Binary compatibility with NetBSD In-Reply-To: <9502262045.AA04553@cs.weber.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 26 Feb 1995, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > To not maintain binary compatability *including* shared images would > > > > be folly. > > > > > > Bravo! I agree completely. We do not need one more fragmented, > > > incompatible flavour. > > > > Sigh. I applaud the sentiment, gentlemen. So. That simply leaves the > > simple question: Which one of YOU are going to do the work involved? > > If you think it's a difficult task, I can set aside next Saturday to > start to replace FreeBSD's libc with NetBSD's. > > I'll probably need a thud account and some disk space. > > I maintain that the incompatability is gratuitous. Those areas where > FreeBSD has code that NetBSD does not should be rolled back into NetBSD > anyway. > > > Terry Lambert > terry@cs.weber.edu > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers. > I would be willing to help with guidance. jbeukema