Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:17:02 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@hub.freebsd.org> To: mike@argos.org Cc: brett@lariat.org, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: OpenBSD Message-ID: <19990818201702.DC37214FF0@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.05.9908180147590.19377-100000@jason.argos.org> (message from Mike Nowlin on Wed, 18 Aug 1999 01:58:02 -0400 (EDT))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I'd sure hope so... Let's face it -- even though FreeBSD is (in my > opinion) the most "robust" out of the bunch, the x86 architecture isn't > going to win any awards for performance.... Cheap, yes. Easy, yes. > Works for the most part, yes. But it's still based off of the idea that > we need to be backwards-compatible with the late 1700's. The Alpha port > of FBSD is A Good Thing (I'm hoping to try it out this weekend on a couple > of the Alpha machines I have available for playing with), but the high-end > boxes are pretty pricey. You can find multi-processor SPARC machines > being practically given away by companies who don't know what they're > capable of, not to mention several other platforms. thisis incorrect. the intel processors knock the snot out of sparc in inteeger performance. take a look at the hint benchmark for example. the benchmark is in the ports tree. the alpha on the other hand knocks the intel flat on the matt. jmb To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990818201702.DC37214FF0>