Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:54:34 +0200 From: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com> To: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@gmail.com> Cc: Alexey Shuvaev <shuvaev@physik.uni-wuerzburg.de>, hackers@freebsd.org, Nate Eldredge <nate@thatsmathematics.com> Subject: Re: genuine cpu I386_CPU kernel support Message-ID: <200909231554.n8NFsYwT078965@fire.js.berklix.net> In-Reply-To: Your message "Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:27:17 BST." <5311D83C-0DB0-4D10-B2AB-B61FD37178F7@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rui Paulo wrote: > On 22 Sep 2009, at 19:03, Nate Eldredge wrote: > > > On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, John Baldwin wrote: > > > >> My comment is to just use 4.x (seriously). A true 386 is going to > >> be quite > >> slow and the overhead of many things added that work well on newer > >> processors > >> is going to be very painful on a 386 (probably on a 486 as well). > >> 4.x runs > >> fine on a 386 and should support all the hardware you can stick > >> into a > >> machine with an 80386 CPU. > > > > Unless, of course, you plan to put it on a network. I doubt that > > 4.x is up to date with respect to security patches. > > I don't know if they were all applied on 4.x, but I think at least the > older ones are. 4.11 fell out of security support some while back, but http://www.freebsd.org/security/index.html only lists what's still in, not what fell out when. Free/ Net/ Open/ Dragon etc all derive from Bill Jollitz port of BSD to 386. Would be nice if we could still keep that first platform walking, even if speed can't be called running ;-) Maybe I'll get time to chase down all that came before http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base?view=revision&revision=137784 Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey: BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Mail ASCII plain text not HTML & Base64. http://asciiribbon.org Virused Microsoft PCs cause spam. http://berklix.com/free/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200909231554.n8NFsYwT078965>