On 2015-07-20, Joel Rees <joel.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > I know I'm persona non-grata on the list these days, and I doubt I'm > going to make much sense in an argument, but it's the way Intel won > that has some of use willing to take a small hit on performance or > price.
The irony is that I've probably run more non-x86 hardware than the mouth flappers here. (For one, I've had four different Alphas over the years.) Nowadays there are no alternatives to x86 in the desktop market. None. There are choices in the (big) server market and there are choices in the embedded market, but there is nothing in the desktop segment. Being "willing to take a small hit on performance or price" does not magically will such alternatives into existence; it just makes you sound delusional. And anybody considering OpenBSD on non-x86 be better prepared to pitch in with development, add support and fix problems. If you just want to use it, you're better off with x86. (For instance, and getting vaguely back to topic, the Blade 150 suffers both ohci(4) and gem(4) lockups if you hit the right usage pattern. And we have tons of build logs from ports that fail to build on various archs.) -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
