Subject: Re: FreeBSD Bus DMA
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Perry E. Metzger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/11/1998 15:44:18
"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
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