On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 10:13:52AM -0701, Jacob Meuser wrote: > My comments: > I wouldn't be surprised if he had problems with OpenBSD-current, since > he used a -current from shortly after the tree unfroze for the next > release, which is when most "new" things go in and OpenBSD-current is > most unstable. So these "new" additions are to the kernel and are so drastic in an incremental release as to introduce stability problems and O(n) algorithms as opposed to O(1) algorithms used in free bsd 5.1 and linux 2.6?
> And he surely has a more "standard" machine for server testing than a > laptop, no? Indeed. However it is the same hardware for all platforms. > (OpenBSD will try to configure any device it finds, as > almost all drivers are built in to the GENERIC kernel ... I doubt he > loaded all possible modules on the other OSes. Not saying this is > necessarily a problem, but he doesn't even give the dmesg for each > OS, or if IRQs were shared with some kernels and not others, etc, etc.) Nevertheless, what's wrong with his suggestion of having openbsd incorporate many of the kernel improvements found in netbsd and freebsd? And his response to the response "openbsd's focus is security not performance." "Hopefully security and performance are not mutually exclusive." With Openbsd's security track record and freebsd's performance record, what a gain it would be to incorporate freebsd's improvements into openbsd. It is easier to make any OS higher performance than it is to make any more secure. Cory -- Cory Petkovsek Adapting Information Adaptable IT Consulting Technology to your (541) 914-8417 business [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.AdaptableIT.com _______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
