jkunz skrev:
>On 21 May, Iggy Drougge wrote:
>>> - If you want a modern *ix OS, NetBSD is what you want. NetBSD is a
>>> nice, pure and small but complete Unix. It is my faforit OS.
>> Not mine,
>Different people, different preferences. (Said the ape and bit into the
>soap. ;-) )
>> but I've installed it on lots of machines. It's really an odd habit
>> of mine, I collect the most disparate computers, then make them as similar
>> as possible running the same OS.
>The same for me. It is amusing to se the same OS on a VAX, or Sun 3 and
>on an Alpha or the latest XX GHz hyper wintel crap PC. (And to see how
>reliable a 15 years old *ix machine is and how many PeeCees fail in the
>first 15 days or even 15 hours of there life.)
Of course, 15 year-old PCs won't fail either. The machines which did fail in
their first fifteen days are long gone, and that goes for all platforms.
>> I'm aware of the 1.5 bloat problem, and I think it's a serious matter for a
>> multiplatform OS like NetBSD. The pmax port has been contaminated as well.
>This is the way life goes. NetBSD is a living system. It grows, new
>features like IPv6 (that will become mandatory), wscons (that is
>reasonible), RAIDframe, Softdeps ... are "bloating" the system. This is
>the price, that we have to pay for the improved functionality. I accept
>that this may be too much for the oldest machines im my collection. I
>don't expect from 2.11BSD on my PDP11 to support NFS, so do I accept
>that NetBSD 1.5 is a bit "slow" on a MicroVAX II with 5MB RAM. But the
>"bloat" problem is known to the NetBSD folks and a result is the
>tech-perform mailing list...
Why should IPv6 be mandatory? Isn't that supposed to be backwards-compatible
as far as end clients are concerned, and isn't it my business what I run on my
network?
And why shouldn't one expect NFS support from 2.2BSD?
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Schont die Sockel, wenn ihr die Denkm?ler st?rzt. Sie k?nnten noch gebraucht
werden.
--- Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Received on Mon May 21 2001 - 19:08:03 BST