From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Feb 15 20:46:26 1995 Return-Path: questions-owner Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id UAA07398 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 20:46:26 -0800 Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id UAA07372 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 20:46:16 -0800 Received: by haven.uniserve.com id <346>; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 20:55:14 -0800 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 20:55:01 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Samplonius To: Peter Berger cc: questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: BSD for DEC Alpha In-Reply-To: <3hugm4$cq@ivory.lm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: questions-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On 15 Feb 1995, Peter Berger wrote: > That's an unworthy comment. NetBSD 1.0/i386 is rock solid, and arguably > more of a "clean" release than 2.0. I've run both; I'm running FreeBSD > now. Ok, I've been set straight on the stability of NetBSD (and personally reminded to stay away from e-mail after discussing our company's future or lack thereof with my boss). Ok, why do we have two i386 BSD's then? Seems like a bit of wasted effort? (I should also point out that, I've been partial to NetBSD myself since it's multi-platform support made it more BSD-like, but I sort of "fell" into FreeBSD) Tom (who knows he will be flamed about that last paragraph)