> http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html claims:
> "Linux supports more different processors than any other operating system ever has."
> "Yes, we passed the NetBSD people a few years ago in the number of different processor families and types that we support now."
> Is that true?  And has it been true since 2004?  ("a few years ago")

Yup, I think it is true.  Especially if you include uClinux which supports
embedded platforms without MMU.

That being said, I still prefer NetBSD, which is much cleaner.  If only
we had a proper journaling file system, like HFS from Apple or JFS from
IBM.  (I am not a big fan of ext3 for Linux.)

Anyways, for some reason, companies that produce embedded chips and
boards (such as Renesas) seem to be choosing Linux over NetBSD.  I don't
know why, especially since NetBSD has more friendly licencing over the
GPL.

I guess that it is a popularity contest, and by now every non-technical
person, including corporate board members and other execs, have heard
about Linux.  While NetBSD is relatively unknown amoung non-technical
people.  I have lost count about how many times I have explained what
is NetBSD to people.

Currently I only use (i386/amd64) NetBSD for desktops and servers,
and only use Linux/uClinux and sometimes WinCE/Mobile[56]/PocketPC for
embedded.

It doesn't help that I work with the originator of uClinux, who clearly
has a preference for that OS on the embedded side.  At least he
recently conceded to the *BSD side by becoming an Apple fan and now
only uses MacOSX for his desktops.

Alicia.