From owner-freebsd-platforms  Wed Oct 15 18:10:59 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-platforms>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA23656
          for platforms-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-platforms)
Received: from free.rahul.net (free.rahul.net [192.160.13.11])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA23651
          for <freebsd-platforms@freebsd.org>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from Pete.Delaney@rockymountain.rahul.net)
Received: from 54.rahul.net [192.160.13.54] 
	by free.rahul.net with smtp (Exim 1.71 #5)
	id 0xLeSZ-0002bP-00; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:10:44 -0700
Received: by RockyMountain.rahul.net id AA04546
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5); Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:10:40 -0700
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:10:40 -0700
From: Pete Delaney <Pete.Delaney@rockymountain.rahul.net>
Message-Id: <199710160110.AA04546@RockyMountain.rahul.net>
To: gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu, jkh@time.cdrom.com
Subject: Re: FreeBSD for the PowerMac?
Cc: freebsd-platforms@freebsd.org
Sender: owner-freebsd-platforms@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


   > [Redirected to FreeBSD-platforms; only *one* mailing list at a time,
   > if you please!]
   > 
   > > a) If you feel freeBSD/PPC has nothing to offer, then why bother
   > >    running FreeBSD on Intel-ish chips?  There's a lot more
   > 
   > I think you may have missed his point.  He was simply trying to say
   > that there's no point in investing all the time, effort and
   > maintainance costs into going to another platform where we can't
   > really offer anything new.  We have a lot to offer on the Intel
   > platform and *we're already there*, which counts for one heck of a lot
   > when you are the one who gets to do all the work.
   > 
   > With the possible exception of certain strategic platforms like ALPHA,
   > I don't see the point in putting a lot of project resources into
   > non-x86 architectures.  We simply have a lot of better things we could
   > be doing with those resources and ALPHA itself is strategic not even
   > so much for what they represent as a "market" as what they do as a
   > test bed, helping us to weed out the 64 bit issues in our code base
   > well before Intel finally forces us to go in that direction with
   > Merced or whatever it is that they eventually come up with. :)
   > 
   > > c) I, for one, would be quite interested in FreeBSD/PPC (assuming
   > >    someone else does most of the work... :-).
   > 
   > But then that's the case for so many things, isn't it? :-)
   > 
   > 					Jordan
   > 

OpenBSD and NetBSD are worth considering.

-piet