From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Dec 10 17: 1:32 2000 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 10 17:01:28 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from homer.softweyr.com (bsdconspiracy.net [208.187.122.220]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41A7937B400; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:01:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=softweyr.com ident=Fools trust ident!) by homer.softweyr.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 145HOi-0000C8-00; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:04:56 -0700 Sender: wes@FreeBSD.ORG Message-ID: <3A342838.2345F03@softweyr.com> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:04:56 -0700 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Daniel C. Sobral" Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG, "Chad R. Larson" , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PCIOCGETCONF/PCIOCREAD requires write permission? References: <200012080707.AAA12102@freeway.dcfinc.com> <20001208115004.B81619@dragon.nuxi.com> <3A333CE4.5B9FDA92@newsguy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "Daniel C. Sobral" wrote: > > David O'Brien wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 12:07:49AM -0700, Chad R. Larson wrote: > > > I thought the space staked out by the *BSD gang was approximately > > > this: > > > NetBSD - the least amount of platform-specific code possible; run > > > on most anything > > > OpenBSD - pro-active security, bullet-proof from attacks > > > FreeBSD - best performing on the Intel PC platform > > > > s/the Intel PC/server/ The Alpha has very good I/O bandwidth and 64-bit > > address space. Thus it fits our niche. You also mentioned Sparc, but > > really should have said sparc64(pci based). > > > > hopefully embeded soon too. > > Yep, "server" is much more to the point. And not simply best performing, > but we also strive to be user-friendly. > > The bottomline is that we, of the BSDs, do *not* have a focus. We want > to support good servers and good desktops and good notebooks, we want to > provide performance and user friendlyness. We do not care about being > ported to every hardware platform under sun, and we do not go out of our > way to provide security. Thus, NetBSD and OpenBSD have the edge on us on > these respects, but we gain by providing a better overall enviroment on > the platforms we support. The problem is that you can't one-line that. BSD for the masses. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message