From owner-freebsd-ports  Tue Oct 10 22:37:57 1995
Return-Path: owner-ports
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id WAA23489
          for ports-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 22:37:57 -0700
Received: from tango.rahul.net (tango.rahul.net [192.160.13.5])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id WAA23484
          ; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 22:37:55 -0700
Received: from bolero.rahul.net by tango.rahul.net with SMTP id AA27494
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5); Tue, 10 Oct 1995 22:37:05 -0700
Received: from RockyMountain.rahul.net by bolero.rahul.net with SMTP id AA27727
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5); Tue, 10 Oct 1995 22:35:42 -0700
Received: by RockyMountain.rahul.net id AA26288
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5); Tue, 10 Oct 1995 22:35:08 -0700
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 22:35:08 -0700
From: Pete Delaney <pete@RockyMountain.rahul.net>
Message-Id: <199510110535.AA26288@RockyMountain.rahul.net>
To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu, ports@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu, se@zpr.uni-koeln.de,
        ache@astral.msk.su
Subject: Re: Netscape 2.0beta1 - Port of HotJava to FreeBSD and NetBSD More Usefull?
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org, netbsd-ports@netbsd.org,
        owner-sparclinux@vger.rutgers.edu, pete@RockyMountain.rahul.net,
        Wally@RockyMountain.rahul.net
Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

   > >} Well, so what do you guys think about updating the "port"?  (I know,
   > >} it's a binary-only port and we can't distribute the distfile/package
   > >} anyway....)  I've been using it since yesterday, and it feels really
   > >} "beta", so I won't update the port unless people really want the
   > >} change to go in.
   > 
   > I dislike this idea, it contains too many bugs for everyday usage
   > comparing to old version.

   > BTW, I think separate port (netscape2) will be nice addition.

Wouldn't a complete port of HotJava to SunOS 4.1.4, FreeBSD, NetBSD, 
and Linux be more in the tradition of BSD? I hate being SourceLess.

-pete