Hi, On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 11:39:54PM -0500, Stephane Russell wrote: > Hi, thanks for your reply, which I read carefully.
You're welcome. > Logically, I think that if a system is not defining "BSD", than it's > simply not a BSD, it's a BSD fork at most. BSD has been dead since the nineties. Nothing to see here, move along. > Yes, not that a problem, but some common tag would useful here too, when > possible. Also, like you say, Darwin is considered a BSD, but this > doesn't say much. It tells that BSD like code "might" compile. There is no "BSD like" code; it varies on a case-by-case basis. Part of the problem with porting is software checking for platform names whereas it should be looking for features. > NetBSD's > pkgsrc, FreeBSD's popularity and Linux's widespread innovations, might > be the only things keeping some similarities between the BSD forks. Code/feature sharing is happening. I feel there is more similarity between recent *BSD and Linux systems than between old proprietary Unices from the 80s. > So at most, BSD forks can only be used seriously as strong servers. That's > how I'm using dfly. FUD. All my desktop systems have been running on FreeBSD or DragonFly for more than 10 years. Sometimes the lack of a good Microsoft Word alternative is a bit painful, but with LibreOffice now unleashed, there's a good chance this matter will be resolved relatively quickly. -- Francois Tigeot