> but I always had the feeling that things are implemented, almost never properly documented and rarely revisited in the future. It's interesting, because if y

> but I always had the feeling that things are implemented, almost never properly documented and rarely revisited in the future. It's interesting, because if you look at OpenBSD, which forked from NetBSD in the '90s, you see a similarly spartan feature selection that can seem from the outside to be selected on developer whim and sometimes with priorities that don't match everyone who might want to use the system. However, rather than letting the features rot, they often just remove them. So for example, some years back they just went and removed Linux binary emulation; no doubt it was tremendously useful to some people but they weren't interested in maintaining it, so poof, one release it was just gone, and if you weren't paying close attention to the platform this news might have just come as a shock one release. In some ways that's more honest but if you happen to rely on one of these features it can feel destabilizing. I write this not as a criticism per se; I have generally liked every *BSD system I have used.