From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Dec 13 11: 1: 2 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E32A4153A8 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:00:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3) for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org id 11xaiM-000BRJ-00; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:00:54 +0000 Received: from localhost (jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA77149 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:00:54 GMT (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:00:54 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: age of freebsd Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG does this belong in advocacy or chat instead? I've heard pros and cons to the age of BSD OSes. On the plus, side, they are mature and stable, and have picked up many new and valuable features. On the con side, is it possible we will eventually reach a wall where the limits of the kernel require a major overhaul, or that it will become impractical to keep BSD up to date? AS hardware and filesystems, even GUI's and the Net evolve, is BSD flexible enough to keep pace? I've heard people complain about certain aspects of Unix, yet many have been addressed with add-on features, such as Andrews FS, Sun's NFS, virtual memory, support for SMP, etc. Is there a practical limit? For example, Intel and Windows held on to old standards for backwards compatibility, but eventually they will need to scrap it all and go back to the drawing board to be able to take advantage of new innovations. -jm To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message