zettel at acm.org
Fri Jan 14 10:07:05 PST 2005
On Friday 14 January 2005 05:56 pm, Freebsd0101 at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/13/05 11:27:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> atkielski.anthony at wanadoo.fr writes:
> BS> Oh, but I do understand! FreeBSD is not good choice for companies
> BS> that need support for the latest hardware.
> >It's not a question of latest, it's a question of which hardware.
> >FreeBSD, like all operating systems, targets a broad but not universal
> >user base, and so the mix of hardware that it supports doesn't cover
> >every conceivable device, although it will naturally overlap for the
> >most part with any other OS.
> >For example, given the predominance of FreeBSD as a heavy-duty server
> You clearly haven't been paying attention....
> The entire point of this extended discussion, for those who have paid
> attention, is that FreeBSD 4.x, which is admittedly the fastest version
> available, DOES NOT work with intel's fastest CPUs because it doesnt
> support the necessary chipsets, AND, that freebsd "people" would
> rather ridicule people that ask why than fix things.
> So your claim that its a "heavy-duty server" platform is tainted by the
> fact that in order to use the fastest server Mobos, you have to use the
> still-under-development 5.x. Which seems counterproductive for an O/S
> that is trying to establish itself as a choice as a server platform.
Not necessarily. The interesting question hasn't been addressed yet.
Is 5.3 on its fastest supported chipset faster or slower than 4.10 on
its fastest supported chipset? I would be willing to guess that it is.
Then the whole thing gets down to a difference of opinion about
development priorities in the face of limited resources.
Better to expend resources on making 5.3 faster than 4.10 on all
chipsets or retrofit 4.10 to the new ones?
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-questions