On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:32 PM, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO <vt...@c3sl.ufpr.br > wrote: > > Most people that have those big amounts of memory don't use their > PCs full potential. CPU is mostly idle, etc. Also they don't > realize how big those amounts of memory are... > > Also there is the environment problem, too many good computers > throwned away because of mere fashion... > > When questions of OpenBSD's short comings come around, it seems legions of OpenBSD apologetics leap out of the woodwork. My favourite instance was someone asking about rate-limiting in PF (which at the time didn't exist), and him being thoroughly berated because that wasn't the job of the firewall! That's the job of the daemon running the service. Shortly after someone implemented rate-limiting in PF, and it was touted as PF's awesomeness, now enhanced.
Or how much better using a VPN over your WEP protected AP us rather than using WPA2. But really, the fact is, OpenBSD doesn't (didn't?) support WPA2. People waxing on about how unnecessary they think >4GB of RAM is, seems about par for the course. But I believe it to be equally ridiculous. Where I work, we have databases that would gladly use as much RAM as you could throw at them. Memcached, which does its job all the better with >4GB, and many many PHP utilizing webservers with a metric tonne of modules. Inefficient in CPU and memory use, yes, but we can't afford to pay our web developers to write our site in C. But why stop at C? How inefficient when compared to hand-tuned assembly?! I'm not complaining about what OpenBSD can or can't do. I'm just saying that telling people what their needs are is rather insulting. I imagine they'd just like to use their favourite OS in more places. Chris
