"John S. Dyson" writes:
> Perry E. Metzger said:
> > FreeBSD has ONE architecture up and fully supported. You have the
> > i386, period. You've never finished a single port to another
> > architecture.
>
> FreeBSD or me?  The very interesting thing is that whether or
> not someone works on FreeBSD, has little to do with previous
> experience.

Fine. I'll accept that you have experience. Can you tell me, then, on
which architectures other than Wintel boxes you have tried this new
bus_dma design on, and what the results have been?

> I suspect that assuming that FreeBSD is the only
> expertise that someone has is only an issue of projecting
> personal experience.

"Projecting personal experience?"

I've been hacking on BSD since 4.2 on Vaxes. My memory stretches back
to the PDP-8.

> Please don't associate choosing FreeBSD as a platform with
> a lack of experience, because that alienates people who
> have had to choose it, due to it being the only alternative
> that really works for them.

Frankly, for most end users on a wintel platform, NetBSD and FreeBSD
are going to be equally usable once installed, but that is a
canard. You are distracting from my point, which is utterly
unrelated. I never said anything about being stupid or
lacking experience in general.

I made a specific claim, to whit, that the FreeBSD development team
does not have anywhere near the experience with multi-platform
portability that the NetBSD team has, and thus doesn't have any place
making claims about portable architecture UNTIL it has managed to port
its system to at least *one* other architecture other than
Wintel. Hell, you don't even have the experience that the Linux people
have at this point.

If you are going to claim that you have a better architectural design
than us for multi-platform portability, you'd better be able to back
that up with at least one non-Wintel box that your design is running
on.

Perry