From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 6 11:28:54 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E5516A4CE for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2005 11:28:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9DCD243D48 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2005 11:28:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no) Received: (qmail 60903 invoked by uid 1001); 6 Feb 2005 11:28:52 -0000 To: flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org From: sthaug@nethelp.no In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 6 Feb 2005 12:08:22 +0100" References: <20050206120822.3d8e381a.flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.05+ on Emacs 19.34.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 12:28:52 +0100 Message-ID: <60901.1107689332@bizet.nethelp.no> cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: scottl@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The case for FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 11:28:54 -0000 > As I see it, until FreeBSD 5 becomes fully stable and solves the UP > performance issue, some people will give NetBSD a try. Of course this is > good because it means both teams will improve the already excellent OSs > and users will have more freedom of choise. And some of us needing extremely stable and high performance UP systems are probably going to stick to FreeBSD 4.x for a while yet. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no