My personal feeling here is that we should aim for eventual inclusion of all three, but in order to get this project off the ground and get the nasysayers to STFU, we need to concentrate on one kernel first and get it ready for prime time. The others can follow at leisure. Basically, we need to focus all our collective effort in the same direction in order to have an installable package as quick as possible, then we can holler off on whatever tangent trips our individual triggers as we can spare the effort. As far as how different each kernel is, this is a good thing to know, but largely irrelevant to the task at hand. They could be identical except the author's names (they're not..) and I'd still suggest the same methodology: concentrate on one, get it out, then work on the other two when the consensus is that those that intend to maintain the first kernel have things well in hand.
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Andres Salomon wrote: > Just how different are the kernels themselves? I use openbsd, and I've > used freebsd.. Why not aim for all 3, if possible? > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 09:59:01PM -0700, John Galt wrote: > > > > <hammer> What kernel should we aim for first? </hammer> > > > -- Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
