"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote:
>
> David O'Brien wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 12:07:49AM -0700, Chad R. Larson wrote:
> > > I thought the space staked out by the *BSD gang was approximately
> > > this:
> > > NetBSD - the least amount of platform-specific code possible; run
> > > on most anything
> > > OpenBSD - pro-active security, bullet-proof from attacks
> > > FreeBSD - best performing on the Intel PC platform
> >
> > s/the Intel PC/server/ The Alpha has very good I/O bandwidth and 64-bit
> > address space. Thus it fits our niche. You also mentioned Sparc, but
> > really should have said sparc64(pci based).
> >
> > hopefully embeded soon too.
>
> Yep, "server" is much more to the point. And not simply best performing,
> but we also strive to be user-friendly.
>
> The bottomline is that we, of the BSDs, do *not* have a focus. We want
> to support good servers and good desktops and good notebooks, we want to
> provide performance and user friendlyness. We do not care about being
> ported to every hardware platform under sun, and we do not go out of our
> way to provide security. Thus, NetBSD and OpenBSD have the edge on us on
> these respects, but we gain by providing a better overall enviroment on
> the platforms we support. The problem is that you can't one-line that.
BSD for the masses.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
