On January 23, Eric Dittman wrote:
> > > This sucks!!! Something you might want to consider is using OpenBSD for
> > > your server. I've been using Linux for over 10 years now, and while I think
> > > it's a pretty good desktop OS, and OK as a server, if I want a stable secure
> > > server I'll use OpenBSD! Of course OpenBSD sucks in that it doesn't support
> > > multiprocessor systems!
> >
> > That's why you go with NetBSD.
>
> I seem to remember the difference between NetBSD and FreeBSD
> was NetBSD's goal was to run on anything, while FreeBSD's goal
> was to run on x86 systems. Has that changed?
Sorta. The FreeBSD evangelists started trying to port to other
architectures some time ago. Sun funded their UltraSPARC port if
memory serves, because some suit at Sun had heard of FreeBSD but not
NetBSD...and NetBSD would have been a MUCH better choice because it
was already 64-bit clean, already had lots of relevant device support,
the team had relevant architectural experience, etc etc etc...Later,
the FreeBSD folks ported their stuff to Alpha. The last time I played
with it, about 1.5yrs ago, it was slow and very unstable.
I've always drawn the lines like this: NetBSD does things portably,
and runs on buttloads of different processor architectures. FreeBSD
specializes in PeeCee hardware, and all their effort is [was] focused
there, so it's more featureful and has more device support on x86.
So the lines are blurring, and for primarily political reasons.
We don't even want to TALK about OpenBSD. The whole reason for the
very existance of that OS was a petty argument between a bunch of
egotists in the NetBSD core group, and OpenBSD was started out of
childish spite. Reminds me of clark.net. Pardon me whilst I throw
up.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
St. Petersburg, FL "Less talk. More synthohol." --Lt. Worf
Received on Wed Jan 23 2002 - 00:49:15 GMT