From owner-freebsd-current Tue Oct 15 23:02:29 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id XAA12256 for current-outgoing; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 23:02:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA12248 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 23:02:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.8.0/CET-v2.1) with SMTP id GAA11641; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 06:02:19 GMT Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 15:02:19 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock To: Nate Williams cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSDI 3.0 feature list In-Reply-To: <199610160531.XAA09204@rocky.mt.sri.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, Nate Williams wrote: > > > This is a bit off-topic, but I find it ironic that BSDI 3.0 contains > > > almost everything FreeBSD -current had (or stuff we've had for quite a > > > > What's ironic about it? Their contributor pool isn't as large as > > FreeBSD's. > > I think you're mistaken. Almost every one of BSDi/3.0 'features' are > kernel features, and the # of kernel hackers in FreeBSD is about the > same as in BSDi. It's certainly a lot less than in something like > NetBSD, but it seems most of them spend all their time just trying to > keep their's kernel working (or get it working :) rather than doing lots > of new features. Erm. I didn't look at it that way. One thing to consider is that they initially had the CSRG VM guy, but not the FS/VM guy. Maybe they waffled on what to do for a while. I wonder what approach they used to make (read/write/mmap) coherent? This could make for an interesting comparison. Regards, Mike