Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!midway!mimsy!nocusuhs!nmrdc1!minixug!ukmug!jonathan
From: jonathan@ukmug.uk.mugnet.org (Jonathan Allen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: PH Carping
Keywords: better minix
Message-ID: <910603398@ukmug.uk.mugnet.org>
Date: 3 Jun 91 17:21:09 GMT
Organization: MUGNET UK Backbone (UKMUG)
Lines: 23

Reginald H. Beardsley (dprrhb@inetg1.ARCO.COM) wrote:
> Jonathan Allen (jonathan@ukmug.uk.mugnet.org) wrote:
>> AFAIK, the real concern at PH is actually that they know that AM is
>> BETTER (in some ways) than 'standard' MINIX

> Better than PH's distribution? For what?  Andy put a LOT of work into
> creating Minix in the first place.  What goes (or does not go) into PH
> is his call.  What goes into your system is your call.  However, the
> carping above is bad manners.  You should apologize.

> I'm currently using 1.5.10 from PH (a bargain at full list!) with
> Spivey's buffer cache, Oliver's  shared text, Housel's fp, and
> Helmer's bootblok.  There are problems  sometimes, but all in all
> it's pretty nice.

Case proved M'lud !  You run the additions because they feel 'better'
to you, or provide a facility that isn't in the vanilla.

I did NOT intend any offence or slur to the work that Andy has put
in over the years - I had hoped that was obvious - I run closer to
vanilla than you.  If the net - or Andy - took offence, please accept
my apologies.

Jonathan