From owner-freebsd-advocacy  Wed Nov 29 21:41:16 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org
Received: from smtppop3pub.verizon.net (smtppop3pub.gte.net [206.46.170.22])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id A137337B400; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:41:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gte.net (evrtwa1-ar4-144-082.dsl.gtei.net [4.34.144.82])
	by smtppop3pub.verizon.net  with ESMTP
	; id XAA71612083
	Wed, 29 Nov 2000 23:36:55 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from res03db2@localhost)
	by gte.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02869;
	Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:40:39 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from res03db2@gte.net)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:40:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Robert Clark <res03db2@gte.net>
Message-Id: <200011300540.VAA02869@gte.net>
To: brett@lariat.org, dkelly@hiwaay.net, tlambert@primenet.com
Subject: Re: Here is what IBM thinks about using FreeBSD on their newer
Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001129164606.00cfb220@localhost>
Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

If IBM's laptops ship with MS products, the hardware's portion of
the failure rate would be lost in the background noise.

The real question is why IBM is going after the Intel market with 5L,
when Sun has proven that a slow UNIX looks bad when compared with
*BSD and Linux.

Intel+commercial_UNIX=touch_of_death?

[RC]


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message