From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jan 6 08:57:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA29489 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jan 1998 08:57:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from hammer.ipaper.com (hammer.ipaper.com [206.98.137.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA29430 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 1998 08:56:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from capriotti@geocities.com) Received: from com-pipp01 (node19.mpc.com.br [200.246.0.19]) by hammer.ipaper.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA06444 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 1998 10:58:06 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980106145524.006920cc@pop.mpc.com.br> X-Sender: capriotti@pop.mpc.com.br X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 14:55:24 -0200 To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG From: Capriotti Subject: Which free Unix for an embedded system? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk Hi. Remember that topic ?? It was discussed on Usenet, but I think it is worth sending you this question: How reliable is FreeBSD to handle mission-critical tasks ? Supposing that you have a perfect application running under Free, would any of you guys install, for instance, FreeBSD on the Souhorney's computers ? Or maybe, would you rely on Free a medical application to aid surgeries ? I know it may sound strange, but maybe Free can also be an *exelent* option for robots and other alike.