Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:26:09 +0200 From: Jesper Skriver <jesper@skriver.dk> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: Konrad Heuer <kheuer@gwdu60.gwdg.de>, p_a_r <p_a_r@goplay.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD VS BDS Message-ID: <20000328102609.D38550@skriver.dk> In-Reply-To: <20000328001128.A10961@orion.ac.hmc.edu>; from brooks@one-eyed-alien.net on Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 12:11:28AM -0800 References: <81491281.2.1636@mx1-12.onmedia.com> <Pine.BSF.4.05.10003280921590.21864-100000@gwdu60.gwdg.de> <20000328001128.A10961@orion.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 12:11:28AM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 09:39:11AM +0200, Konrad Heuer wrote: > > > > The most important strength of NetBSD is its availability on many > > different hardware platforms. If you plan to set up your servers on Intel > > or DECalpha software, FreeBSD might do better for you. For example, > > FreeBSD supports multi-processor systems, NetBSD does not. The FreeBSD > > install program is more user-friendly. > > Just FYI, NetBSD does now have early SMP support. Initial x86 SMP code > was commited Feb 22. Obviously, you probably don't want to go running a > high-availibility server application on SMP code that's only a month > old, but it's coming along. I was under the assumption that NetBSD's SMP code only initializes the second CPU, but never actually uses it for anything ... /Jesper -- Jesper Skriver, jesper(at)skriver(dot)dk - CCIE #5456 Work: Network manager @ AS3292 (Tele Danmark DataNetworks) Private: Geek @ AS2109 (A much smaller network ;-) One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them, One IP to bring them all and in the zone to bind them. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000328102609.D38550>