From owner-freebsd-current Tue Mar 30 13:31:20 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from kronos.alcnet.com (kronos.alcnet.com [207.244.223.187]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F4CD14CC5 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 13:31:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kbyanc@alcnet.com) X-Provider: ALC Communications, Inc. http://www.alcnet.com/ Received: from localhost (kbyanc@localhost) by kronos.alcnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/antispam) with ESMTP id QAA12229 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 16:36:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 16:36:35 -0500 (EST) From: Kelly Yancey To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: support for larger memory Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Time and time again we have all seen people get bit in the rear because BSDI compatibility was broken. Broken for a good cause, mind you, because FreeBSD seemed to lose a little of that "power to serve" when it died horribly on newer servers :) So, the good news is, we can now support large memory configurations (and I recall that 4G might not be that far off). The bad news is, the fairly decent number of programs which are available for BSDI but not FreeBSD won't run on FreeBSD now. Anyway, we all know that. But what I would like to know is: how does BSDI support large memory configurations? I'm confused on how it is that the $1000+ commercial BSD derivative can't handle running on newer servers (although it is pleasing to think a $0 BSD derivative can :) ) Surely, this cannot be the case, though. So, I'm curious, why is it that we needed to break BSDI compatibility in order to support large memory configurations. It would seem that the two shouldn't be mutually exclusive. Thanks, Kelly ~kbyanc@posi.net~ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message