From owner-freebsd-security Wed Aug 18 13:17: 4 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 608) id DC37214FF0; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:17:02 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" To: mike@argos.org Cc: brett@lariat.org, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: (message from Mike Nowlin on Wed, 18 Aug 1999 01:58:02 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: OpenBSD Message-Id: <19990818201702.DC37214FF0@hub.freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:17:02 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > 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