From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 20 14:45:10 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A83B416A4CE for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:45:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp1.wanadoo.fr (smtp1.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.30]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6395C43D3F for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:45:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (mail.rararchiver.com [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf0103.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 2A7EB1F9264C for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:45:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf0103.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 0D91D1F9264F for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:45:09 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20050120144509558.0D91D1F9264F@mwinf0103.wanadoo.fr Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:45:08 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1029300732.20050120154508@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200501200855.j0K8tdsS021670@mp.cs.niu.edu> References: <200501200855.j0K8tdsS021670@mp.cs.niu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: FreeBSD I LOVE YOU X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:45:10 -0000 Scott Bennett writes: SB> The recent discussion in this thread causes me to wonder whether SB> FreeBSD's performance on older, slower equipment could be a SB> contributing factor to why hardware vendors like Dell and ATI are SB> willing to provide only limited support for LINUX and none at all SB> for FreeBSD. After all, if FreeBSD lets a Pentium II w/MMX handle, SB> for example, a moderately loaded web site or large network firewall SB> or some other reasonable use and thereby obviating many purchases of SB> hardware upgrades, why would they want to encourage its use? An excellent point. Certainly Intel has shown in the past that it is interesting in promoting technologies that gobble processor time, and so logically it and other hardware-oriented companies are not going to be interested in anything that extends the life of older hardware. -- Anthony