From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Nov 9 00:32:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA23753 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:32:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.5.85]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA23748 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:32:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr06.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA08828; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 01:32:02 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr06.primenet.com(206.165.6.206) via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd008814; Sun Nov 9 01:31:54 1997 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA18899; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 01:31:51 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199711090831.BAA18899@usr06.primenet.com> Subject: Re: IDT processors? To: freebsd@atipa.com (Atipa) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 08:31:51 +0000 (GMT) Cc: cmott@srv.net, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Atipa" at Nov 8, 97 11:04:18 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > I really doubt the contingent that is affected by this bug would be > likely to trust a no-name chip. The whole point is reliability... I think any "no name" chip vendor could reasonably claim "as reliable as a Pentium(tm)" on a potato chip bag right about now... [ ... ] > Good call... especially if any member of the contingent in question is an ISP offering shell accounts and execute access for customer applications... like, oh, say WWW page CGI's, etc.? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.