Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:43:19 -0500 From: "Thomas Mueller" <mueller23@insightbb.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: T2000 Sparc FreeBSD8.2 installation failed Message-ID: <17.42.07225.7DD822F4@smtp02.insight.synacor.com> References: <a8398bca836d1ad9a584c542b9b2a895@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 01/26/2012 02:05 PM, Anonymous wrote: > > NetBSD > > Not recommended, sorry to say > Why? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201201.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> responded: > Net has support for less sparc64 platforms than OpenBSD or FreeBSD and > NetBSD reliability has gone downhill. I am sad to say it but I think Net's > best days are behind us. I hope I have to eat my words some day. It used to > be my favorite OS and pkgsrc is fantastic. NetBSD supports many different platforms, maybe it's the way they count that makes it look like more than FreeBSD and Linux? I have great problems with NetBSD on new Intel Sandy Bridge computer. It was FreeBSD 9.0_BETA1 that caused me to suspend the struggle with NetBSD. NetBSD-HEAD (5.99.xx to become 6.0) wouldn't even boot from hard-drive installation, would boot partway but hang. Installation CD would boot maybe half the time. NetBSD 5.1_STABLE would boot, but always went into immediate hard reboot when I tried to go to X. On old computer, I have weird screenblanking problems with both NetBSD 5.1_STABLE and HEAD; 4.0.1 was somewhat better. On new computer, apparently the only viable open-source OSes are FreeBSD and Linux. OpenBSD seems too backward and problematic, I never installed that. Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17.42.07225.7DD822F4>