Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 21:14:03 -0500 (EST) From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@hotjobs.com> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au>, freebsd-sparc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Read this... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9812092109300.27793-100000@bright.fx.genx.net> In-Reply-To: <19981210120104.G12688@freebie.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Wednesday, 9 December 1998 at 20:31:10 -0500, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >> On Thursday, 10 December 1998 at 7:47:48 +1100, John Birrell wrote: > >>> Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >>>> Will someone with more courage and experiance than I please speak up about > >>>> this, perhaps contact sun? > >>> > >>> Please _don't_ ask Sun for anything until you have a working port on > >>> limited hardware. I doubt that anyone following this list would be > >>> prepared to spend $$$ based on what has been said so far. Those people > >>> who have access to Sun machines should be able to do a port with neither > >>> financial nor moral support from Sun. If you want this sort of support, > >>> you have to earn it. > >> > >> I suppose I should point you people to > >> http://www.lemis.com/x/sunworld-bsd.html, which is a draft of an > >> article I've submitted to SunWorld. This is for review only in the > >> present form; please don't distribute it, but I'd be interested in > >> comments. > >> > >> One thing in particular occurred to me in this context: why does Sun > >> want Linux or *BSD? On the whole, Solaris <whatever number it is > >> this week> is a pretty good operating system, and neither Linux nor > >> *BSD can equal it. What advantage would I have running FreeBSD on my > >> UltraSparc? Or should we be doing what NetBSD and OpenBSD are already > >> doing and running it on older (32 bit) Sparc hardware? > > > > This is my reasoning why I want a sparc port: > > > > Solaris (even with source license) is basically closed source. It's being > > piecemealed down into as small pieces as possible in order to charge for > > each individual component. > > > > FreeBSD has very neat features NQNFS with leases is great, softupdates > > _DESTROYS_ solaris UFS without a question. > > I thought that Solaris no longer used ufs. Don't they have something > more advanced? You can get Veratias (sp?) but that's a commercial add-on. yup afaik they still use UFS, or at least it's the default. You can't even mount async. > > Is it just me, or do most of the people on this list dislike SYSV-like > > setups? > > I do, anyway, but before we try to replace them, we should at least > stand a chance. Sola-what? :) > > > please excuse the mini sarcasm, but we could ditch FreeBSD all > > together and run SCO or SolX86 no? :) > > Sure :-) > > Don't get me wrong, I can see advantages. But at the moment, I'm more > concerned with FreeBSD keeping up with the market place, and despite > all the open source hype, we're having trouble. There are some basic > architectural problems that need attention, and I'm not sure that the > FreeBSD way of doing things is adequate. This is one of the reasons, > BTW, that John Dyson stated for leaving the FreeBSD project. I'm not in the loop as these matters go, i'm not a commiter and haven't looked into what Dyson has talked about. I do wish he would come back continued work on the vm and smp systems would be most welcome I think. This may not be the best answer here, but i think FreeBSD is thriving just look how busy the cvs servers have been. Have you tried to cvsup lately? :) -Alfred > Greg > -- > See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers > finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-sparc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9812092109300.27793-100000>