On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 12:16:59PM -0700, Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote:
> From: Charles M. Hannum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 10:40:01AM -0700, Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote:
> > > Like, what docs does a vendor engineering division give to the
> >
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 10:40:01AM -0700, Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote:
> Like, what docs does a vendor engineering division give to the developers
> who write the drivers internally? They don't give them bad docs. They give
> them functional, useful docs. Does it need to be stated that any project
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 01:08:13AM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote:
> They don't have to write device drivers at all, they just should
> write good documentation.
Unfortunately, the "documentation" often isn't so hot either. I'll
give you an example. Even with both code and "documentation" from
Rea
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 05:44:00PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> Andy Ruhl wrote:
> >On 8/31/06, Thorsten Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>BSD is about an operating system, not about a kernel.
> >
> >Bingo. Good point. This point is lost sometimes.
> >
> >I believe NetBSD has the proper
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 12:01:07AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A chicken running around sans head is quite active.
> Not really the same thing as productive.
What you don't see is that NetBSD is the chicken in your analogy.
The NetBSD Project has stagnated to the point of irrelevance. It has
gotten to the point that being associated with the project is often
more of a liability than an asset. I will attempt to explain how this
happened, what the current state of affairs is, and what needs to be
done to attempt to fi
6 matches
Mail list logo
