The future of NetBSD

[Andy Ruhl]

On 8/31/06, Charles M. Hannum <mycroft at mit.edu> wrote:
> Actually, defining (poorly) the OS to include so much else has been a
> liability for NetBSD in many ways.  It has massively slowed the adoption
> of new software versions (e.g. GCC), for one.  It also contributed to
> the perception that a better package system and automatic updates were
> not a serious issue.

It would be interesting to hear more discussion on this.

If there is a continuum that is what the definition of an OS is, with
a bare kernel on the left and something like SuSE with multiple gigs
of junk on the right, NetBSD is toward the left. I think consensus is
among NetBSD people is that this is a good thing. If you want
something, put it in pkgsrc.

I think NetBSD deals with the "compiler issue" quite well. If a
compiler must be part of the base OS, ship it with some fairly stable
version. Then there are more recent versions in pkgsrc. And if you
really want to do your own thing, download and compile your own.

What's the big deal?

Andy